Opinion ID: 767408
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The test-firing evidence

Text: 23 Aldaco also argues that the test-firing evidence should have been deemed inadmissible because it was unduly prejudicial to him. Alternatively, the defendant-appellant argues that the evidence should have been excluded as a sanction for the destruction of the shotgun. 7 24 The court concluded that the results of the test-firing conducted by the police which demonstrated that the shotgun fired as designed were relevant and admissible evidence and furthermore that it was not unduly prejudicial to Aldaco. However, in an attempt to protect Aldaco's rights, the trial judge stressed to the parties that defense counsel would be given latitude to fully explore the gun firing and testing issue on cross-examination, advising thatthis may be fully explored by the defendant in cross-examining the witnesses who are called regarding the gun, the shotgun, and its testing and also any other circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the weapon, the testing of it, and ultimately that it was destroyed. 25 We refuse to hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Aldaco's motion to suppress the evidence regarding the test-firing of the long-barreled shotgun. The indictment charged Aldaco, a convicted felon, with possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 921(a)(3). The statute defines a firearm as any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive . . . . Id. Obviously, the government was required to introduce the test-firing results in order to satisfy their burden of establishing that the shotgun was a firearm. Proof that the shotgun properly fired during the test-firing conducted by Chicago police demonstrates that the weapon is a firearm as charged in the indictment. The test results were relevant. Given the fact that Aldaco pled guilty in Illinois state court to charges of unlawful use of a weapon in violation of 720 ILCS sec. 5/24-1, offered no defense in his federal trial, and twice made the admission to Officer Sanchez that the gun was his and not to put it on any of the other guys, and because Aldaco also had more than ample opportunity to challenge the testing evidence at trial, we hold that the court did not erroneously conclude that the relevance of the gun-testing issue outweighs any potential prejudice to Aldaco. The trial court's conclusion that the test-firing evidence was admissible was proper.