People v. Johnson
406 Ill. App. 3d 805
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- T.W. was abducted in an alley, dragged to an abandoned building, and sexually assaulted by Johnson with force and threats of death.
- Vaginal semen evidence collected; vaginal swabs yielded a male DNA profile later matched to Johnson.
- Johnson was charged with two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and one count of aggravated kidnapping; defense argued lack of force/consent.
- The State introduced evidence of uncharged sexual assaults under section 115-7.3 to prove propensity, focusing on CV's assault from November 10, 2003.
- Johnson challenged DNA foundation and confrontation issues; court admitted DNA testimony and CV's uncharged-act evidence after pretrial rulings and limiting instructions.
- Appellate court affirmed Johnson's convictions and sentences, holding the uncharged-act evidence admissible under 115-7.3 but deeming its error harmless, and finding proper DNA foundation and no confrontation-clause violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| admissibility of other-crimes evidence under 115-7.3 | Johnson’s propensity evidence is unfairly prejudicial and insufficiently similar. | State may prove propensity and lack of consent under 115-7.3; evidence was probative and properly limited. | Admission was error but harmless. |
| DNA evidence foundation | Ginglesberger's testimony and lab accreditation provide adequate foundation. | Foundation for calibration/accuracy of equipment was lacking. | Foundation adequate; no error in DNA testimony. |
| Confrontation Clause | DNA testimony does not violate Crawford when underlying data is not admitted for truth. | Analyst's testimony without cross-examination of the primary analyst violates confrontation. | No Crawford error; confrontation rights satisfied. |
| forfeiture of challenges | Error preserving objections sufficient for review. | Objections preserved on trial; issues ripe for appellate review. | Issues forfeited; plain-error review disfavored. |
| harmlessness of error | Error in admitting other-crimes evidence could have affected outcome. | Evidence had significant similarities; not harmless. | Harmless given strong independent evidence and weak impact of the other-crimes evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Donoho, 204 Ill.2d 159 (2003) (establishes framework for admissibility balancing under 115-7.3)
- People v. Illgen, 145 Ill.2d 353 (1991) (threshold similarity for other-crimes evidence)
- People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 (2001) (limits on ‘mini-trial’ of other-crimes evidence)
- People v. Williams, 238 Ill.2d 125 (2010) (DNA expert foundation and confrontation analysis)
- People v. Raney, 324 Ill.App.3d 703 (2001) (foundation for electronic/technical device used by experts)