Opinion ID: 2066016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: evidence of defendant's parole status

Text: Defendant urges that he should receive a new trial because one of the police officers, Detective Ptak, improperly testified at trial that defendant was on parole at the time he made his incriminating statements to the police officer. Generally, it is improper to admit evidence that the defendant engaged in other crimes merely to prove the accused's propensity to commit criminal acts. ( People v. Hendricks (1990), 137 Ill.2d 31, 52, 148 Ill.Dec. 213, 560 N.E.2d 611.) Evidence that the defendant has engaged in other criminal activity may be admissible, however, to prove identity, motive, or state of mind of the accused. See, e.g., People v. Salazar (1988), 126 Ill.2d 424, 455, 129 Ill.Dec. 1, 535 N.E.2d 766; People v. Richardson (1988), 123 Ill.2d 322, 342-43, 123 Ill.Dec. 908, 528 N.E.2d 612. Defendant complains of two statements made by Detective Ptak, and contends that these references to defendant's parole status violated the trial court's ruling. As noted earlier with respect to the defendant's argument that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, the record indicates that during opening statements, the prosecution remarked that defendant had advised the police that he had discovered the victims' bodies but had not reported this to the authorities because he was on parole and was afraid he would be blamed for their deaths. Defendant's attorney objected to the State's remarks. During a lengthy sidebar, the trial court denied defendant's motion for mistrial. In order to limit further comment about defendant's parole status, the trial court ruled that the fact that defendant had talked to parole officers could be revealed to the jury, but that witnesses would not be permitted to disclose that defendant had spoken to his own parole officer. However, the trial court held admissible the defendant's statement that he had not notified the authorities after he found the women's bodies because he was on parole and was afraid he would be blamed for the murders. In this appeal, defendant does not challenge the propriety of the trial court's ruling that limited the extent to which defendant's parole status could be revealed to the jury. Instead, defendant argues that certain testimony from Detective Ptak exceeded the scope of the restrictions specified by the trial court. During the course of the trial, Detective Ptak testified as a prosecution witness regarding the statements defendant made to authorities. Detective Ptak stated that defendant told him that defendant had discovered the bodies. The following colloquy then occurred: Q. [Assistant State's Attorney:] Did Howard Wiley state to you when he told you this statement that he had told that to any other persons? A. [Detective Ptak:] He stated he had told this to his parole officer. The defendant objected to this testimony. The trial court sustained the objection and advised the jury to disregard the last statement of the officer. At a sidebar, defendant's attorney made a motion for a mistrial. The trial court, upon listening to a tape recording of the officer's testimony as taken by the court reporter, ruled that [t]here is no doubt, after having listened to the tape, that the witness, Detective Ptak, started to say his, stopped in the middle of the word his and changed it to a. The court further explained that it rule[d] that the police officer inadvertently started to say the word his, changed it in midword to a, and that it was totally inadvertent and understandably beginning of a mistake and a prompt correction by the officer. The court noted that it had promptly admonished the Jury to disregard it and we will proceed from that point. Defendant contends that Detective Ptak's reference to defendant's parole status violated the trial court's ruling, was inadmissible, and requires a new trial. Specifically, defendant claims that Detective Ptak impermissibly said his parole officer, not a parole officer. However, the trial court heard the detective's testimony as well as the tape of the testimony as taken by the court reporter. Based upon its observations, the trial court ruled that it was an inadvertent mistake on the detective's part and that the detective had not said the word his. Upon review, we find nothing in the record from which we can conclude that the trial court's factual findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant further suggests reversible error in another reference to his parole status that was made by Detective Ptak. According to the transcript, the assistant State's Attorney asked the detective if the defendant stated why he did not call the police upon discovering the bodies. Specifically, the prosecutor asked if defendant told you in response to that question that he was afraid that they would put him into it and he stated to you that he was on parole, is that correct? The detective answered, Yes, he did. Defense counsel's objection to this exchange was overruled. Defendant claims that Detective Ptak's testimony on this second occasion violated the trial court's ruling. The record reflects that the detective's testimony did not contravene the court's ruling, however. The trial court specifically held admissible defendant's remarks to the detective that defendant was afraid he would be blamed for the murders because he was on parole. Upon review, defendant does not argue that the trial court was in error to hold that such testimony would be admissible. As a result, we find defendant's argument with respect to Detective Ptak's testimony inadequate basis to disturb his convictions.