People v. McGee
26 N.E.3d 529
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Darryl McGee was convicted by a jury of stalking a CTA employee, Vicki Glanz, based on incidents on October 4 and October 8, 2010, and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.
- State charged two counts under 720 ILCS 5/12-7.3(a)(1) and (a)(2) for repeated arrival at Vicki’s workplace, yelling obscenities and causing fear or emotional distress.
- Before trial the State moved to admit other-crimes evidence of a separate October 8 altercation in which McGee and Vicki’s husband, Christopher, fought and Christopher sustained a severe arm wound requiring over 100 stitches; the trial court granted the motion.
- Trial evidence included Vicki’s testimony, surveillance video of the October 8 kiosk interaction (no audio), testimony/photos of the fight, the recovered box cutter, and testimony that Christopher declined to press charges for the stabbing.
- McGee argued the fight evidence was unrelated to the stalking course of conduct and highly prejudicial; the appellate court found the admission an abuse of discretion and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | McGee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of altercation (other‑crimes evidence) | The fight showed McGee’s violent intent toward Vicki and was part of a continuing narrative; weapon showed intent | The altercation was a separate, distinct event unrelated to stalking and inadmissible propensity evidence | Reversed: admission was an abuse of discretion; altercation was not part of the stalking course |
| Necessity of altercation to admit weapon evidence | The altercation contextualized recovery of the box cutter at station | Box cutter could be admitted without detailed testimony about the fight; altercation not necessary | Court: box cutter evidence might be admissible, but fight testimony was unnecessary and prejudicial |
| Prejudice / Harmless‑error analysis | Even if erroneous, admission was harmless beyond reasonable doubt | Admission was highly prejudicial and dominated trial, warranting new trial | Not harmless: error pervasive; remand for new trial |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support stalking conviction | State: testimony + surveillance could support conviction if jury credited witnesses | McGee: challenged sufficiency as alternative relief | Court: evidence could support conviction if credited, but decline to affirm because prejudice requires retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Placek, 184 Ill. 2d 370 (1998) (other‑crimes evidence inadmissible to prove propensity; judge must balance probative value vs. prejudice)
- People v. Lindgren, 79 Ill. 2d 129 (1980) (reversed and remanded where unrelated, highly prejudicial subsequent crime was admitted)
- People v. Diaz, 78 Ill. App. 3d 277 (1979) (other‑crimes admissible for time/place proximity, to prove fact in issue, rebut alibi, or show consciousness of guilt)
- People v. Ranstrom, 304 Ill. App. 3d 664 (1999) (prior violations admissible when showing motive/obsession tied to charged offense)
- People v. Fauntleroy, 224 Ill. App. 3d 140 (1991) (evidence related to arrest may be admissible as part of narrative of circumstances)
- People v. Abernathy, 402 Ill. App. 3d 736 (2010) (other‑crimes admissible when part of a continuing narrative or intertwined with charged offense)
- People v. Bovio, 118 Ill. App. 3d 836 (1983) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)