Court Opinion

ID: 9533657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:33:43.528816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:06.731004
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: It was prejudicial error to permit evidence of other crimes to be introduced for the apparent purpose of proving guilt of the charged offense. Such procedure deprived the defendant of a fair trial and I would reverse and remand for a new trial. In cause No. 14196, involving the alleged rape of Terri Lee Scott, the trial court permitted the testimony of three other alleged victims wherein they testified to attacks made upon them. The defendant contends, and I agree, that this proof of other crimes was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, notwithstanding the proper limiting instruction. It tended to show defendant’s propensity to commit crimes of an aggressive, sexual nature. Of course, as a general rule, evidence of other crimes is inadmissible. (People v. Gregory (1961), 22 Ill. 2d 601, 177 N.E.2d 120; People v. McDonald (1975), 62 Ill. 2d 448, 343 N.E.2d 489.) However, an exception to this rule exists where the evidence serves to place defendant in proximity to the time and place, aids or establishes identity, or tends to prove design, motive or intent. People v. Romero (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 704, 334 N.E.2d 305, affirmed (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 325, 362 N.E.2d 288; People v. Tranowski (1960), 20 Ill. 2d 11, 169 N.E.2d 347, cert. denied (1960), 364 U.S. 923, 5 L. Ed. 2d 262, 81 S. Ct. 290; 368 U.S. 978, 7 L. Ed. 2d 440, 82 S. Ct. 484. Yet the exception is not to be applied mechanically whenever the evidence of other crimes serves to prove or establish one of the categorical exceptions to the rule. It is the court’s responsibility to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently probative of an issue in the present case to outweigh the obvious prejudicial effect of disclosing this evidence to the jury. (Romero.) In order to engage in the required discretionary balancing act, the court must consider the other evidence in the case in order to assess the need for admitting prejudicial evidence of other crimes. As was stated by the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Goebel (1950), 36 Wash. 2d 367, 218 P.2d 300, “[Tjhis class of evidence, where not essential to the establishment of the state’s case, should not be admitted, even though falling within the generally recognized exceptions to the rule of exclusion, when the trial court is convinced that its effect would be to generate heat instead of diffusing light, or * * * where the minute peg of relevancy will be entirely obscured by the dirty linen hung upon it.” 36 Wash. 2d 367, 379, 218 P.2d 300, 306. I concur in the Washington court’s thinking on this subject and emphasize that here, unlike in the case where there is entirely circumstantial evidence or no positive identification by the victim, it would not have been necessary for the State to parade in three victims of other assaults for which defendant has not yet been prosecuted. Notwithstanding the limiting instruction which was given, this procedure still has the effect of placing defendant on trial for four offenses rather than one. Naturally, the more offenses which the jury hears the defendant has committed, the more likely they will be to convict him of the present charge. Despite any limiting instructions, defendant’s propensity to commit crime threatens to become the issue of focus rather than proof of guilt in the case at trial. Here, the trial court admitted the evidence of three separate, unconnected sexual assaults on the theory that they could show identification of the defendant or common design. Clearly, identification of the defendant was in issue here because he presented an alibi as a defense. Does this mean that any time a defendant raises alibi as a defense the State may produce witnesses who can identify defendant as the perpetrator of similar crimes either prior to or subsequent to the present charge? I would oppose such a broad interpretation of the identification exception subscribing to the views expressed in People v. Butler (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 78, 334 N.E.2d 448. As the appellate court said in Butler, where the evidence falls into one of the exceptions, i.e., identity, and there is ample eyewitness testimony to establish in the instant case, it is error to allow witnesses to recapitulate the details of defendant’s prior criminal acts in order to prove identity. The testimony of the three other girls here did not establish a common design or modus operandi. Under Professor McCormick’s view, evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove common design if the device used is “so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” (McCormick, Evidence §190(3), at 449 (2d ed. 1972).) While it is clear that nothing about these four attacks was so distinctive as to amount to a “signature” under the McCormick test, the cases indicate that Illinois courts may have taken a less restrictive approach towards admission of such evidence. Romero said that “[i]n order to be admissible on the issue of common design the evidence of another offense must come within the requirement of being substantially similar and have common features with the offense charged. (People v. Tranowski, 20 Ill. 2d 11; People v. Lehman, 5 Ill. 2d 337; 2 Wigmore on Evidence, §304 (3d ed. 1940).)” (Emphasis added.) (31 Ill. App. 3d 704, 709, 334 N.E.2d 305, 309.) After reading Tranowski and Lehman, I do not agree that those cases stand for such nonrestrictive requirements on the use of such evidence. Lehman speaks of “peculiar and distinctive features common to” (5 Ill. 2d 337, 343, 125 N.E.2d 506, 509), while Tranowski spoke of “a scheme or design which was strikingly similar” (20 Ill. 2d 11, 16, 169 N.E.2d 347, 349). It seems that the evidence of another crime must be “strikingly similar” or “peculiar and distinctive” in order to be admissible under the exception; merely finding substantial similarity or common features will not suffice. For example, here the victim and the three other witnesses who were attacked all indicated that the attacker began his assault by fondling or attempting to fondle their breasts or genital areas. While this is a common feature, it is far from being distinctive in crimes of this nature. Upon comparison, the accounts of the four attackers under consideration here contain glaring dissimilarities. Terri Scott was stalked, not on foot like the others, but by a man who followed her in his automobile until he reached a suitable location to assault her. Here Miss Scott was raped on the west edge of Champaign, several miles from the University of Illinois campus area in which the other three attacks took place. In only two of the four incidents was the attack preceded by robbery while in only three of the four did the attacker use a knife. With these factors in mind, the common design exception has not been met. In view of the highly prejudicial nature of such evidence, we believe that its admission here was reversible error. It can be argued that the defendant was charged with one offense, tried for four, and convicted of propensity to commit sex offenses. Further, I believe there was error in the admission of the knife found in defendant’s possession. The victim told the police that the knife was not even similar to the one used by her assailant, and I know of no rule that permits a weapon that is specifically described as totally unlike one used in the commission of an offense to be admitted at the time of the trial for that offense. While this dissent has focused upon the issues in cause No. 14196, the error with reference to cumulative testimony purported to establish continuing criminal propensity is repeated in cause No. 14097. These cases should be reversed and remanded for a new trial free of the prejudicial error.