People v. Mack, 52 N.E.3d 772

Defendant Galon E. Mack (age 44) was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal sexual abuse for allegedly rubbing the vagina of a 15‑year‑old girl while she slept at a friend’s house; sentenced to 10 years in prison plus 2 years mandatory supervised release.
Victim testified she awoke to defendant’s hand rubbing her vagina in a circular motion under the covers, screamed, and later saw defendant easing his hand from under the cover.
Two roommates (Ti’Ann and Si’Era) heard the scream; Ti’Ann saw defendant at the foot of the bed and the victim reported the touching to others; police were called and took a written statement the next morning.
Defendant admitted entering the bedroom to throw a cover and pillow on the sleeping girls, said he may have accidentally touched the victim’s leg, and denied any sexual touching; his explanations about why he entered the room varied at different times.
Trial testimony included victim’s in‑court account, corroboration by Ti’Ann (heard scream, saw defendant), Officer Rice’s recounting of the victim’s statement, and testimony from defendant’s fiancée about events after the scream.
Jury found defendant guilty; on appeal he challenged (1) sufficiency/credibility of the evidence and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for allegedly opening the door to a prior consistent statement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mack)	Held
Sufficiency/credibility of evidence — was testimony so incredible/improbable that it cannot sustain a conviction?	Victim’s clear, consistent testimony plus corroboration (scream, witnesses, prompt report) supports conviction.	Victim was asleep, never saw the touching directly, gave an implausible description, and defendant’s account was more reasonable.	Affirmed — viewed most favorably to State, jury reasonably believed victim; evidence sufficient.
Ineffective assistance — did defense counsel improperly open the door to a prior consistent statement, prejudicing defendant?	Even if counsel erred, admission was cumulative and non‑prejudicial given victim’s clear testimony and corroboration.	Counsel’s questioning invited inadmissible repeating of the victim’s prior statement, undermining defense.	Affirmed — defendant failed Strickland prejudice prong; no reasonable probability of a different outcome.

People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311 (Ill. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence).
People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30 (Ill. 2009) (apply Jackson v. Virginia standard; draw inferences for the prosecution).
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional sufficiency standard: any rational trier of fact).
People v. Carlson, 278 Ill. App. 3d 515 (Ill. App. 1996) (credibility is for the trier of fact).
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance test).
People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (Ill. 1984) (adoption of Strickland in Illinois).
People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361 (Ill. 2000) (definition of reasonable probability under Strickland).
People v. Daniels, 164 Ill. App. 3d 1055 (Ill. App. 1987) (conviction may be upheld where complainant’s testimony is clear and convincing or substantially corroborated).
People v. Thompson, 198 Ill. App. 3d 417 (Ill. App. 1990) (examples of corroborating evidence in sexual‑abuse cases).
People v. Nunes, 30 Ill. 2d 143 (Ill. 1964) (recognition that sexual‑abuse charges can be easily made and hard to defend).