Opinion ID: 2242748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Handgun Evidence [1]

Text: Defendant also maintains that the trial court erred in allowing Riverdale Police Officer Michael Horn to testify regarding the guns and ammunition found during the search of Smith's house and about defendant's claim of ownership of the 9-millimeter handgun. Defendant contends that since this gun was not used in the murder, its introduction only served as evidence of his bad character, which is impermissible and entitles him to a new trial. The State notes that defendant did not object to this evidence at trial or in his post-trial motion, and thus the issue has been waived for review. Defendant acknowledges that the issue was waived, but contends that we should reach the issue under the plain error exception to waiver. See 134 Ill.2d R. 615(a). It is well established that plain error will be invoked in criminal cases only where the evidence was closely balanced or the error was of such magnitude that the accused was denied a fair trial. People v. Alvine, 173 Ill.2d 273, 292, 219 Ill. Dec. 546, 671 N.E.2d 713 (1996). Neither of these factors is present in the guilt phase of the instant case. The evidence of guilt was not closely balanced. Four separate eyewitnesses testified that defendant agreed with his codefendant's suggestion that he had to do something so that the victim did not jeopardize their drug operation. Defendant, in possession of a shotgun, then drove off in the victim's car with the victim in the trunk, with a pillowcase over her head. The victim was found dead from a shotgun wound to the head hours later, still wearing the same pillowcase. Moreover, defendant himself confessed to all of the above; his only defense was an attempt to shift responsibility for the actual shooting to a stranger he had met at the party whom he had picked up in the car after driving away from the house. In light of this evidence, we do not consider the case to have been closely balanced. Alvine, 173 Ill.2d at 292, 219 Ill.Dec. 546, 671 N.E.2d 713. Nor, as we explain below, was any error in the introduction of this evidence of such magnitude that the accused was denied a fair trial. Alvine, 173 Ill.2d at 292, 219 Ill.Dec. 546, 671 N.E.2d 713. Indeed, we believe there was no error in introducing the evidence. First, as the State notes, the defense elicited the fact that the 9-millimeter weapon was found during the search during cross-examination of Smith before Officer Horn testified. On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Smith about the search of his house in January 1994: Q. [Defense Counsel:] And the Riverdale Police came in, you were there. Remember that? A. [Smith:] Yes, sir. Q. And they searched your house. Remember that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember them recovering a 9 millimeter pistol under your mattress? A. That belongs to [defendant], which [ sic ] he stated that it was his gun. Q. So, you do remember them recovering a pistol? A. I don't know about recovering, but they said there was gun [ sic ] there and the only gun that was there was the one that [defendant] had. A criminal defendant cannot complain on appeal of the introduction of evidence which he procures or invites. People v. Payne, 98 Ill.2d 45, 50, 74 Ill.Dec. 542, 456 N.E.2d 44 (1983); People v. Menssen, 263 Ill.App.3d 946, 951, 201 Ill.Dec. 669, 636 N.E.2d 1101 (1994). Moreover, even had defendant not opened the door to the introduction of this evidence, we would see no error in its introduction. All of the witnesses testified to seeing Moreland in possession of a 9-millimeter pistol at the house, and the fact that such a weapon was recovered there buttressed their version of events. Further, at least one witness, Carroll, testified that defendant, not Moreland, had the gun in his possession when the men first entered the house. Even had he not, all of the witnesses' testimony was to the effect that defendant and Moreland were working together. The fact that defendant had claimed ownership of a gun of the same type as that seen in Moreland's possession would thus tend to support the State's case. For these reasons, plain error does not excuse defendant's procedural default of this issue.