People v. Gonzalez
112 N.E.3d 676
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On July 3, 2010 defendant Leonardo Gonzalez was accused of shooting a man; victim and victim’s girlfriend identified Gonzalez in a photo array (Aug 5) and live lineup (Aug 6) and at trial. No physical evidence linked Gonzalez to the scene.
- At trial identification was the primary issue; victim initially did not report tattoos or a shag haircut, later testified he saw tattoos and was “100 percent sure.” Defense attempted to show defendant’s hand tattoos to the jury but the trial court barred the display unless defendant testified.
- The victim and girlfriend both testified they were told by police prior to the photo array that the shooter had been identified and was in the photo spread; Gonzalez was the only person appearing in both the photo spread and the lineup.
- Defense theory was misidentification; posttrial defendant presented affidavits/witnesses claiming the victim said the incarcerated man was not the shooter and that the victim wanted money to drop charges; three alibi witnesses also testified at a posttrial hearing that Gonzalez was home playing video games at the time of the shooting.
- Trial counsel testified he declined to present tattoo evidence because of a concern it would open the door to gang evidence, and he did not call certain alibi witnesses, saying he did not find available alibi stories credible.
- The trial court denied posttrial motions; the Appellate Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the exclusion of the tattoo display was legal error that, together with newly presented witnesses about the victim’s statements, rendered the case closely balanced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant could display his hand tattoos to the jury without testifying | Display is testimonial or requires defendant’s testimony to lay foundation; trial court properly required cross-examination | Tattoo display is non‑testimonial demonstrative evidence; excluding it without requiring testimony violated the right to present a defense; foundation can be laid other ways | Court: display is nontestimonial; excluding it absent a proper-foundation ruling and requiring waiver of the right not to testify was legal error and plain error given closely balanced evidence; remand for new trial |
| Reliability of identifications after police told witnesses shooter was found and in the photo array | Identifications were proper and supported conviction | Police statements tainted the photo array; being told the shooter was in the array undermined reliability | Court: police statements undermined reliability; identifications were the State’s sole link and were vulnerable, supporting finding evidence was closely balanced |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to call alibi witnesses and for not admitting tattoo evidence | Trial counsel made reasonable strategic choices (avoiding gang evidence, concerns about alibi credibility) | Counsel failed to investigate or present available alibi witnesses and declined to offer tattoo evidence for improper strategic reasons | Court: did not resolve ineffectiveness fully because reversal and remand for new trial warranted on other grounds (tattoo exclusion and new-witness evidence); noted trial counsel’s choices questioned by record |
| Whether newly discovered testimony (victim allegedly said incarcerated man was not shooter and sought money) warranted new trial | The witnesses were unreliable and delayed in coming forward; trial court reasonably discredited them | Testimony was newly discovered, material, noncumulative and could probably change the verdict | Court: these witnesses plus the excluded tattoo evidence could reasonably change the result; remanded for a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52 (recognizing when de novo review applies to legal questions about evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Williams, 188 Ill. 2d 365 (abuse-of-discretion review principles for evidentiary rulings)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (constitutional right to present a complete defense; exclusion rules that arbitrarily exclude defense evidence violate due process)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967) (physical exemplars and demonstrations are nontestimonial and do not implicate Fifth Amendment testimonial safeguards)
- People v. Warmack, 83 Ill. 2d 112 (trial court may require physical display but such displays are nontestimonial)
- People v. Davenport, 301 Ill. App. 3d 143 (codefendant’s tattoos used as demonstrative evidence; display not testimonial)
- People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532 (one eyewitness identification can suffice for conviction)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (standards for new trial based on actual innocence)