People v. Montano
2017 IL App (2d) 140326
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In July 1990 Guadalupe Montano disappeared; her body was never recovered. Family testimony implicated her husband, Aurelio Montano, who allegedly strangled her, wrapped her in a rug, and buried her at a horse farm.
- Multiple relatives (sister Narcisa, nephew Roberto, brother Arturo, and daughter Maribel) provided testimony implicating Aurelio, including eyewitnesss of the body wrapped in a rug and confessions by Aurelio.
- Police uncovered a rug at the horse-farm site in 1994 and again during a reopened investigation in 2007; no human remains or forensic confirmation (DNA, tissue) were recovered.
- After the 2007 recovery, three human-remains–detector dogs (and their handler expert) alerted to the excavated area and to the rug; the State sought admission of dog-alert testimony and presented a Frye hearing with expert testimony on canine olfaction and forensic taphonomy.
- Trial (2013) produced a first-degree murder conviction and natural life sentence (2014). On appeal defendant argued the canine-alert evidence was inadmissible (relying on Cruz) and that Frye/Rule 702 were not satisfied; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Montano) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of human-remains–detector dog alerts | The dog-alert evidence is scientifically supported (canine olfaction, taphonomy), was the subject of a Frye hearing, and is admissible under Rule 702 as reliable expert evidence | Dog-alert testimony is analogous to per se–excluded bloodhound trailing evidence (People v. Cruz) and lacked scientific corroboration (no remains); admission was prejudicial | Court admitted the evidence after a Frye hearing (found general acceptance) but did not resolve the broader Cruz conflict because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether Cruz’s per se prohibition controls | State: Cruz addressed trailing; modern science and Frye/Fed.-style reassessment permit admission where foundation is shown | Montano: Cruz establishes a bright-line ban on canine scent evidence to prove facts in criminal cases | Court recognized Cruz’s rule but allowed reexamination under Frye/Rule 702; it accepted the Frye hearing outcome without overturning Cruz statewide |
| Whether dog alerts without scientific confirmation of remains are too prejudicial | State: alerts were corroborated by independent witness testimony and expert foundation; probative value outweighs prejudice | Montano: alerts lacked corpus delicti corroboration (no remains) and risked undue prejudice and juror overreliance | Court found any possible prejudice harmless because of overwhelming independent evidence of guilt |
| Whether admission requires scientific confirmation of the target (human remains) | State: not strictly required where Frye/Rule 702 foundation and independent linkage to the item/site exist | Montano: without lab-confirmed human tissue, alerts are unreliable and should be excluded | Court admitted under Rule 702/Frye here but emphasized that the strength of corroborating evidence affected harmless-error analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- People v. Cruz, 162 Ill. 2d 314 (Ill. 1994) (announced per se exclusion of bloodhound trailing evidence in criminal cases)
- People v. Moore, 294 Ill. App. 3d 410 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (distinguished Cruz; allowed narcotics–detector dog alert corroborated by recovered contraband)
- People v. Simons, 213 Ill. 2d 523 (Ill. 2004) (Frye and Rule 702 principles; general-acceptance framing)
- United States v. Burgos-Montes, 786 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2015) (rejected cadaver-dog evidence where prosecution failed to lay sufficient scientific and procedural foundation)