Opinion ID: 1998744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Court's Refusal to Exclude Portions of Defendant's Confession

Text: Defendant next argues that he was denied a fair eligibility hearing due to the trial court's failure to grant a motion in limine to redact portions of defendant's confession, an error which defendant contends was compounded by Detective Van Stedum's inaccurate and misleading characterization of the confession as containing an admission of defendant's previous intent to assault other women with a crowbar and rape them, thereby tainting the jury with speculative other-crimes evidence which was substantially prejudicial and unfair. Prior to the eligibility phase, the defense moved in limine to exclude or redact from defendant's confession any statements regarding defendant's thoughts involving hitting women over the head with a crowbar on the Illinois Prairie Path. The trial judge denied this motion, allowing the State to introduce evidence into why [defendant] procured the crowbar, that he procured it, that it was prior to these events. The trial judge further ruled that [t]he crowbar and the conversation about the crowbar, any statements about the crowbar, that is probative and its very relevant and it should come in. Defendant unsuccessfully renewed the motion to redact the confession after voir dire was concluded. Detective Van Stedum on direct examination was asked to describe the contents of defendant's confession of June 10, 1994, in which defendant described a crowbar he owned. The following occurred: THE PROSECUTOR: Did you ask him anything further about when he purchased the crowbar? DET. VAN STEDUM: I did. I asked him when he purchased it. He advised that a few years back he had worked at NPS, which was National Plan Service in Elmhurst. He had gotten fired from there and was pretty upset. He went to a hardware store in Villa Park. He bought it there. He took it to the Prairie Path. He was going to knock a girl over the head and rape her on the Prairie Path. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection, Judge. THE COURT: It will be sustained. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Ask that it be stricken. THE COURT: It will be. THE PROSECUTOR: Can I ask for a basis? (A side-bar was held, which was not made a matter of record.) THE COURT: Objection stands. After this exchange, the audio tape of defendant's confession was played for the jury, and contained the following: DET. SIMO: And why did you buy that [crowbar]? DEFENDANT: For protection and for, you know, `cause I-I was-the year before I was, you know, kind of planning on doing the same thing. DET. SIMO: When you say `the same thing-' DET. VAN STEDUM: You mean hitting a girl over the head? DEFENDANT: Right, or taking her purse or, you know-[.] Defendant contends that the references to the Prairie Path statement are prejudicial and inflammatory and asserts that the statement is at worst ambiguous and, at best, says only that defendant admitted thinking about or planning to hit a girl over the head with the crowbar, not to rape but to rob. Defendant concludes that this evidence did not bear upon any issues to be decided by the jury and only served to distract the jurors from their limited consideration of the issue of eligibility. Defendant never objected to Detective Van Stedum's testimony in his post-trial motions. This court has held that in order for a defendant to preserve a claim of error for review,  [b]oth a trial objection and a written post-trial motion raising the issue are required for alleged errors that could have been raised during trial. (Emphasis in original.) People v. Enoch, 122 Ill.2d 176, 186, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d 1124 (1988). A defendant's failure to comply with these requirements results in a waiver of that issue on appeal. Enoch, 122 Ill.2d at 186, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d 1124. Thus, defendant's challenge concerning this claim is waived. We further determine that defendant's properly preserved claim concerning the trial court's failure to grant defendant's motion in limine to redact portions of defendant's confession lacks merit. We have repeatedly held that evidence having a direct bearing on the statutory prerequisites may be admitted at the eligibility stage. E.g., People v. Simms, 143 Ill.2d 154, 175, 157 Ill.Dec. 483, 572 N.E.2d 947 (1991); People v. Brisbon, 106 Ill.2d 342, 371, 88 Ill.Dec. 87, 478 N.E.2d 402 (1985); see also 720 ILCS 5/9-1(e) (West 1994) (During the proceeding any information relevant to any of the [aggravating] factors    may be presented by either the State or the defendant under the rules governing the admission of evidence at criminal trials). Defendant's purpose in purchasing and keeping the crowbar, in conjunction with his statements to Tom Richardson concerning his intent to kill Maria, relate directly to whether the murder was committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner pursuant to a preconceived plan, scheme or design to take a human life by unlawful means. 720 ILCS 5/9-1(b)(11) (West 1994). Thus, defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to redact the Prairie Path statements from his confession, and no error occurred.