Opinion ID: 2219110
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Admission Into Evidence and Argument of Victims' Personal Traits

Text: Defendant next charges that the trial court committed plain error by admitting into evidence testimony concerning the personal lives of the two victims and arguing such evidence at closing. At trial, Officer Capelli testified that while beginning their investigation into the victims' disappearances, he and Officer Pasterik found a woman's purse inside a car parked outside the Clark service station. In response to what was found inside the purse, Capelli stated the items found: a driver's license with Schmal's name on it, receipts for a man's wedding band and a woman's dress, and an envelope containing $125 cash with money for car handwritten on it. The officer subsequently related how his investigation proceeded on the basis of the driver's license information. During closing argument, as the prosecutor recounted the police investigation at the service station in sequential detail, he mentioned each of the items found in Schmal's purse. Lionberg's father, William Lionberg, testified at trial without objection that the last time he saw his son alive was on his son's birthday. Mr. Lionberg identified a photograph of Schmal and his son taken together at a gathering on his son's birthday as an accurate depiction as they last appeared. This photograph was given by Mr. Lionberg to Officers Capelli and Pasterik at the beginning of their investigation. Defendant agreed that the photo might be published to the jury and available to them during their deliberations. Lynn Fisher, Schmal's sister, testified, also without objection, that she last saw Schmal alive a few days before Schmal's death. In response to whether she knew Lionberg and what had been her relationship to him, Fisher stated that Lionberg and Schmal were engaged to be married. Fisher identified the same photo of Lionberg and Schmal as an accurate depiction of them just before their deaths. Fisher also identified, over objection, the jacket Lionberg was found wearing at death, stating that she knew that it was Lionberg's because it had originally belonged to her father. Fisher then volunteered that Lionberg had needed the jacket and that it had been his style. The record shows that except for the introduction of Lionberg's jacket, defendant failed either to object or file a post-trial motion alleging error. ( Herrett, 137 Ill.2d at 209, 148 Ill.Dec. 695, 561 N.E.2d 1.) We consider the claimed errors not properly preserved by invocation of the plain error rule so as to preclude argument of the possibility that an innocent man may have been wrongly convicted. People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill.2d 564, 576-77, 38 Ill.Dec. 809, 404 N.E.2d 233. This court has consistently condemned the introduction of otherwise irrelevant information concerning a crime victim's personal traits or familial relationships at a criminal trial. ( People v. Hayes (1990), 139 Ill.2d 89, 141-42, 151 Ill.Dec. 348, 564 N.E.2d 803; see People v. Hope (1986), 116 Ill.2d 265, 108 Ill.Dec. 41, 508 N.E.2d 202; People v. Bernette (1964), 30 Ill.2d 359, 371, 197 N.E.2d 436.) However, every mention of such traits or relationships does not per se entitle a defendant to a new trial. ( People v. Hayes, 139 Ill.2d at 142, 151 Ill.Dec. 348, 564 N.E.2d 803; People v. Simms (1988), 121 Ill.2d 259, 268-69, 117 Ill.Dec. 147, 520 N.E.2d 308; People v. Free (1983), 94 Ill.2d 378, 414, 69 Ill.Dec. 1, 447 N.E.2d 218; see also People v. Pitsonbarger (1990), 142 Ill.2d 353, 392-93, 154 Ill.Dec. 562, 568 N.E.2d 783.) Rather, the reviewing court must consider the manner in which references to such issues came about. ( People v. Hope, 116 Ill.2d at 276-78, 108 Ill.Dec. 41, 508 N.E.2d 202; People v. Bernette, 30 Ill.2d at 371, 197 N.E.2d 436.) Where presentation of such information is accomplished in a manner which causes the jury to believe that it is material, rather than incidental, its admission is prejudicial and constitutes reversible error. See People v. Bernette, 30 Ill.2d at 371, 197 N.E.2d 436; People v. Hope, 116 Ill. at 278, 108 Ill.Dec. 41, 508 N.E.2d 202. In the present instance, nearly all of the evidence which defendant considers objectionable was relevant and admissible. The testimony concerning the contents of Schmal's purse tended to explain the course and direction of the police investigation. The discovery of these particular personal items indicated to police that another person was likely missing in addition to Lionberg. The items also indicated that person's probable relationship to him. While every item in Schmal's purse might not have been necessary to explain these operative assumptions, some reference was necessary and inevitable to explain the circumstances of the police investigation. Likewise, the photograph of the victims was relevant because it was given to the police to assist them at the onset of their investigation. That the photograph depicted the victims together at Lionberg's birthday gathering was coincidental rather than indicative that the purpose of its introduction was to evoke sympathy. Similarly, testimony concerning Lionberg's jacket was relevant because he was wearing the jacket when he was found shot through the back. We also believe that the remainder of the testimony of which defendant complains is either probative of the issues ( corpus delicti ), or volunteered responses by a life and death witness. Common sense tells us that murder victims do not live in a vacuum and that, in most instances, they were involved in familial relationships. (See People v. Free, 94 Ill.2d at 415, 69 Ill.Dec. 1, 447 N.E.2d 218.) In sum, we are convinced that the evidence was not presented in a manner as to cause the jury to believe that the victims' personal characteristics or familial relationships were material to the defendant's guilt or innocence. Nor did closing argument concern or at most dwell upon such evidence. Defendant was not thereby deprived of a fair trial and no error resulted.