Opinion ID: 3134365
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Defendant's Exculpatory Statement

Text: Defendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to competently argue that the jury should have been allowed to consider defendant's grand jury testimony that Edward Stalder, not defendant, retained possession of the .22 magnum pistol used to kill Stevens and Bushman. Defendant submits that his trial counsel should have argued that this statement was admissible under the completeness doctrine. On direct appeal, defendant's appellate counsel argued that the circuit court's failure to allow this portion of defendant's grand jury statement into evidence gave the jury the mistaken impression that he admitted keeping the murder weapon. This court found the issue waived because it was not raised at trial. People v. Olinger, 112 Ill. 2d 324, 338 (1986). Defendant now asserts that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective in his presentation of this issue to the trial court. The circuit court dismissed this claim, ruling that defendant's grand jury statement would not have been admissible in any event. We agree. Under the completion doctrine, when a portion of a conversation is related by a witness, the opposing party has a right to bring out the remainder of that conversation to prevent the trier of fact from being misled. People v. Ward, 154