People v. Encalado
2017 IL App (1st) 142548
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Y.C. reported she was raped; DNA from a vaginal swab later matched Theophil Encalado. He was charged with three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault (oral, vaginal, anal contact with a weapon threat).
- The State sought and the court allowed evidence of similar assaults against C.C. and S.A.; the court excluded one similar act as too dissimilar.
- The State moved in limine under the rape-shield statute to bar evidence of Y.C.’s prior sexual contact and to exclude an alternative explanation for the anal swab; the court granted both motions and defense complied.
- Encalado testified claiming both complainants were prostitutes who consensually exchanged sex for money/drugs and that he later reclaimed the payment; he admitted a prior conviction for predatory criminal sexual assault.
- The trial court ruled the State could impeach Encalado with his prior predatory criminal sexual assault conviction, but refused the defense’s requested voir dire question asking venire members whether evidence of prostitution would prevent them from being fair.
- A jury convicted Encalado on all counts; he was sentenced to three consecutive 20-year terms. On appeal the court upheld admission of the prior conviction for impeachment but found the refusal to permit the prostitution-related voir dire question was reversible error and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of defendant’s prior predatory sexual-assault conviction for impeachment | Prior conviction is highly probative of defendant’s credibility in a credibility contest | Admission is overly prejudicial and too similar to charged offenses | Court: Admission within trial court’s discretion; no abuse of discretion (affirmed) |
| Permissibility of voir dire question probing juror bias about prostitution | Rape-shield protections and voir dire scope justify refusal; asking would indoctrinate jurors or improperly preview evidence | Defense needed the question to identify jurors biased against prostitutes or patrons and to exercise challenges intelligently | Court: Refusal was error; the question was appropriate to discover potential bias and its exclusion was reversible (remanded for new trial) |
| Scope of voir dire when defense intends to introduce prejudicial but admissible evidence (prostitution) | Court need not permit questioning that effectively argues or previews evidence; voir dire shouldn’t measure jurors’ reactions to facts | When evidence the defendant may present (e.g., prostitution) risks pervasive bias, the court must allow targeted voir dire to detect that bias | Court: Voir dire must probe prospective jurors for bias that would prevent impartiality; here the court should have asked the proposed question |
| Interaction between rape-shield statute and voir dire questioning about prostitution | Rape-shield limits admission of prior sexual history but does not bar discovering juror bias; protecting complainant doesn’t excuse failing to probe juror impartiality | Allowing the question would circumvent rape-shield protections by suggesting the victim’s prostitution to the venire | Court: Rape-shield does not preclude voir dire inquiry into juror bias when defendant will present admissible evidence that may provoke bias; omission was error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d 510 (1970) (trial court has discretion to admit prior convictions for impeachment)
- People v. Redd, 135 Ill. 2d 252 (1990) (trial court presumed to have considered Montgomery factors; similar prior convictions admitted cautiously)
- People v. Atkinson, 186 Ill. 2d 450 (1999) (standard for reviewing admission of prior convictions for impeachment)
- People v. Strain, 194 Ill. 2d 467 (2000) (voir dire scope; trial court must probe juror bias affecting impartiality)
- People v. Williams, 164 Ill. 2d 1 (1994) (primary responsibility for conducting voir dire rests with trial court)
- People v. Lobb, 17 Ill. 2d 287 (1959) (failure to permit pertinent voir dire may be reversible error)
- People v. Lanter, 230 Ill. App. 3d 72 (1992) (duty to question venire about bias against drug users where relevant)
- People v. Sandoval, 135 Ill. 2d 159 (1990) (limits on cross-examination about prior sexual history under rape-shield principles)
- Gordon v. United States, 383 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (similar prior convictions should be admitted sparingly to avoid undue tendency to convict by propensity)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (voir dire is imperfect; jurors may lie; but probing bias remains important)