Opinion ID: 2086125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Blood Stains

Text: Defendant next argues that trial defense counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to object to the State's characterization of stains on defendant's clothing as blood and (2) to obtain a forensic expert to examine the stains. As the State notes, however, this issue is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and waiver. This court found the State's characterization of the stains as blood proper in defendant's direct appeal. ( Thomas, 137 Ill.2d at 527, 148 Ill.Dec. 751, 561 N.E.2d 57.) While defendant did not raise the characterization-of-stains argument in the form of ineffective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal, principles of res judicata still apply: We recognize, as does apparently the State, the ease with which a petitioner may evade the operation of waiver and res judicata by couching his claims in the context of ineffective assistance. In that regard, we reiterate the rule that a petitioner cannot obtain relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act by simply `rephrasing previously addressed issues in constitutional terms' in his petition. ( People v. Gaines (1984), 105 Ill.2d 79, 90 [85 Ill.Dec. 269, 473 N.E.2d 868]; Silagy, 116 Ill.2d at 371 [107 Ill.Dec. 677, 507 N.E.2d 830].) Such claims will be properly defeated by operation of waiver and res judicata. ( People v. Flores (1992), 153 Ill.2d 264, 277-78, 180 Ill.Dec. 1, 606 N.E.2d 1078.) Defendant cannot now argue that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to what this court has previously found to have been a proper characterization of evidence. We further note that defendant could have argued this claim as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in his direct appeal, but did not. As noted, defendant was represented by different counsel on appeal. Thus, this claim is also waived. We further note that because the State's expert at trial opined that the stains were blood, though she could not be certain, defense counsel had no reason to object to the State's characterization of the evidence. Moreover, according to trial counsel's deposition, defendant informed her that the stains were indeed blood. Defendant's argument concerning counsel's failure to hire an independent forensic expert to determine whether the stains were blood has been waived. This argument could have been raised in defendant's direct appeal but was not. Moreover, defendant informed her that the stains were blood. Thus, defense counsel had no reason to obtain a forensic expert to examine the stains.