People v. Montano
2017 IL App (2d) 140326
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In July 1990 Guadalupe Montano disappeared; her body was never recovered. Defendant Aurelio Montano was tried and convicted in 2013 of first‑degree murder and sentenced to natural life.
- Key testimonial evidence: sister Narcisa saw Guadalupe bound with a rope, saw defendant wrap her in a rug and load it into his truck; other family members (Juan, Roberto, Arturo, Maria) provided corroborating accounts that the body was buried at a horse farm.
- Investigators recovered a rug at the horse farm in 1994 and again in 2007; no human remains or forensic confirmation (DNA/blood) were obtained from the rug or site.
- In 2007 three human‑remains‑detector dogs (with handler testimony) alerted to the rug and the excavation area. The State presented a Frye hearing; the trial court admitted expert testimony about canine olfaction, forensic taphonomy, and the dogs’ alerts.
- On appeal defendant challenged admission of the dog‑alert evidence (arguing it is unreliable under Cruz and Frye), and argued prosecutorial misuse in closing; the appellate court found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming non‑dog evidence of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of human‑remains‑detector‑dog evidence | State: Frye hearing showed underlying science (canine olfaction, taphonomy) is generally accepted; handlers/dogs were qualified; alerts were relevant corroboration | Montano: Analogous to bloodhound trailing in People v. Cruz—odor‑detector evidence is unreliable and per se inadmissible; here alerts were uncorroborated by scientific confirmation | Court admitted the dog‑alert evidence after Frye hearing but did not decide broad correctness of that admission on appeal because any error was harmless |
| Applicability of Cruz per se prohibition | State: Cruz concerned man‑trailing bloodhounds; modern science and Frye procedure permit reexamination and possible admission of odor‑detection evidence | Montano: Cruz established a bright‑line bar against bloodhound/odor evidence to prove factual propositions in criminal cases | Court acknowledged Cruz’s rule but noted courts may reexamine scientific acceptance; declined to overturn Cruz and instead found any admission error harmless |
| Weight/Corroboration required for dog alerts to prove corpus delicti | State: alerts can be corroborative when linked to items known to be connected to the case (the rug) and when expert foundation is laid | Montano: Without physical human remains or forensic confirmation, dog alerts are insufficient and highly prejudicial | Court compared to narcotics‑dog cases (Moore, Holmes) where alerts were corroborated by recovered contraband; here absence of remains weakens probative value but conviction stood on overwhelming other evidence |
| Harmless‑error analysis | State: even if admission erred, other evidence overwhelmingly proved guilt | Montano: Dog evidence was prejudicial and could have influenced jury | Court held any error in admitting dog evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the strong eyewitness/confession‑type family testimony and other facts |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cruz, 162 Ill.2d 314 (Ill. 1994) (announcing per se inadmissibility of bloodhound trailing evidence to establish factual propositions in criminal prosecutions)
- People v. Moore, 294 Ill. App.3d 410 (Ill. App. 1998) (admitting narcotics‑dog alert corroborated by other evidence despite no drugs found in vehicle)
- People v. Pfanschmidt, 262 Ill. 411 (Ill. 1914) (early authority rejecting bloodhound trailing evidence)
- People v. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d 352 (Ill. 2003) (standard for harmless error and State’s burden to show verdict unchanged absent error)
- In re Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill.2d 523 (Ill. 2004) (Frye standard discussion; scientific evidence admissible only if generally accepted in its field)