Opinion ID: 2230536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Street Kids Testimony

Text: Defendant next argues that testimony that defendant brought young males to his apartment was irrelevant and that, even if it were relevant, its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. On direct examination, Burdicki, the janitor at defendant's apartment building, was asked whether he ever saw anyone with the defendant or going to the defendant's apartment, other than Little and Dobrovolskis. Burdicki responded that during June, July and August 1984 (the three months preceding the murder), he saw defendant with young males in their early teens from 10 to 15 times. He also stated that he had never seen either Dobrovolskis or Little with young teens. Burdicki was then asked to describe these young males; it was at this point that defendant asked for a sidebar. Defendant objected on relevancy grounds. The assistant State's Attorney explained his theory of relevancy: Judge, I think who is going in and out of the defendant's apartment is about the most relevant thing that there is at this trial right now. Defendant's objection was overruled, and Burdicki answered the pending question by describing the young males as street kids. He explained that he used that term because the kids were dirty and unkempt; the kids looked like they lived on the street. He also testified that when Little was in Chicago visiting defendant, Burdicki never saw any young males in the building. The parties refer to this testimony as the street kids evidence. Defendant cannot seriously argue that this testimony is irrelevant. Relevant evidence is defined as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable than it would be without the evidence. ( People v. Monroe (1977), 66 Ill.2d 317, 322.) At trial, the State succinctly explained the testimony's relevance in the quoted passage. Defendant's theory throughout the trial and before this court is that he was not the one who brought Danny Bridges to his apartment; he argues repeatedly that there is no evidence linking him to Bridges. The State was entitled to introduce evidence tending to show that it was more likely than not that it was defendant who brought 15-year-old Bridges, a prostitute who worked the streets, to defendant's apartment. Not only was the evidence relevant, it was highly probative, particularly considering the proximity in time to the murder and the number of times Burdicki saw the defendant with young males. Defendant's prejudice argument fares no better. He argues that the probative value, if any, of the street kids testimony was outweighed by its prejudicial effect of showing that defendant was sexually promiscuous with young men. In the trial court's discretion, relevant evidence may be excluded if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. ( People v. Baynes (1981), 88 Ill.2d 225, 244; People v. Kolep (1963), 29 Ill.2d 116, 124.) In this context, prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly an emotional one, such as sympathy, hatred, contempt, or horror. M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 403.1 (4th ed. 1984); see, e.g., People v. Lampkin (1983), 98 Ill.2d 418, 428-29 (defendant's alleged threat made six years prior to the occurrence was very likely to arouse the jury's prejudice or hostility; prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value). In the case at bar, the evidence was highly probative on a crucial disputed fact: who brought the victim to defendant's apartment. For this reason, we doubt that any degree of prejudice would justify excluding the evidence in this particular case. In sum, the prejudicial effect of the evidence does not substantially outweigh its probative value.