Opinion ID: 2088581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: testimony and argument regarding defendant's prior convictions

Text: Defendant argues on his own behalf through his pro se brief and through his attorney that the jury was erroneously allowed to consider defendant's prior criminal history through testimony given by Detective Kaupert and through the State's closing argument. Defendant objects to testimony that he would not sign his confession prepared by Mr. Barbaro because he did not want to go back to prison. However, we find that defendant waived this issue for review by failing to object to these statements at trial. Although defendant filed a post-trial motion for new trial raising this issue, both a trial objection and a written post-trial motion are required to preserve an issue for review by this court. ( Enoch, 122 Ill.2d at 185-87, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d 1124.) Defendant's failure to object to this issue at trial effectively waived his right to review by this court. In response to defendant's suggestion that even though his counsel failed to object to such testimony, the trial judge should have entered a cautionary instruction or moved on its own motion to strike such references, the trial judge found it would have been improper for the court to have done so, as it did not want to interfere with defendant's theory and defense of the case. We find the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for new trial regarding this issue. With respect to the defendant's allegations that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his counsel's failure to object to these statements, we find it has no merit as discussed previously.