Court Opinion

ID: 9722688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:45:06.210399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:38.732225
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the majority’s determination of error by the trial court in admitting evidence presented by the State. The trial court was correct in finding the defense counsel’s opening statement was clear and did permit the evidence to be used as evidence of modus operandi. The opening statement of defendant as highlighted by the State in its brief states: “What he means by facts, there’s other things in dispute. My chent is at this time — at the time of the incident in November of 1999, here we are almost 2 years later, but at the time he was a father of 3. He had an 11-month-old daughter, 2 sons, 4 and 6 years old. He’s a veteran. He is working at the time as an over-the-road truck driver and supporting his children at the time. *** The facts will indicate that ah during this period of time there is [sic] no similar allegations.” The corut referred to the statement of the father and three children and linking his experience as a veteran but, more important, defendant’s reference that nothing happened between 1997 and 1999 and that there were no similar occurrences. The court did continue its ruling not permitting the State to introduce the evidence of the 1981 occurrence. The standard of review is whether the ruling was an abuse of discretion. The majority states that modus operandi is used in proving identity of the perpetrator. I conclude Biggers, Illgen, and Donoho support the trial court’s ruling. The trial court made clear the basis for its ruling. I do not believe the court committed error and would affirm the corut’s order based upon the jury’s verdict.