People v. Moore
2021 IL App (3d) 190535-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2021Background:
- On September 2, 2018, Quadrix Brown was shot in the leg at a gas station; Makai Jordan fired the shots and was later convicted for the aggravated battery.
- Defendant Jerwayne Moore was at the scene with Jordan; prosecutors charged Moore with aggravated battery on an accountability theory (he allegedly told Jordan to "pop his a*").
- Jordan was arrested four days later and had a different firearm (the "purple gun") on his person; Jordan initially told police Moore had given him guns and told him to shoot, but recanted at trial.
- Detective Matt Mocilan reviewed multi-angle surveillance footage, identified Moore and Jordan on the clips, and narrated portions of the video for the jury; the shooting itself was off-camera.
- The purple gun was admitted into evidence over Moore’s objection; Moore was convicted of aggravated battery (Class X) and sentenced to 11 years.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of the purple gun | Gun was relevant to Moore's knowledge, intent, and accountability and corroborated Jordan's prior statements | Purple gun was extrinsic other-crimes evidence showing propensity and unfairly prejudiced the jury | Trial court did not abuse discretion; purple gun probative for knowledge/intent; if error, it was harmless |
| Detective narration/identification of surveillance video | Mocilan's narration was proper lay-witness identification, helpful to jury, based on familiarity and review of full footage | Narration was inadmissible lay opinion; Mocilan had no better basis than the jury; asserts plain error | No abuse of discretion in allowing narration; testimony was helpful and identity was not contested; any error harmless |
| Failure to give limiting instruction for other-crimes evidence | Best practice but not required sua sponte; State limited its argument to non-propensity uses | Trial court should have admonished jury and given IPI limiting instruction | Defendant waived the issue by not requesting admonition or instruction; no obligation to give sua sponte; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bartall, 98 Ill. 2d 294 (1983) (subsequent criminal acts may be admissible to show knowledge or intent)
- People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353 (1991) (trial court may exclude other-crimes evidence if prejudicial effect outweighs probative value)
- People v. Johnson, 406 Ill. App. 3d 805 (2010) (improper admission of other-crimes evidence can be harmless error)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (2005) (issues not raised at trial and in posttrial motion are waived for appeal)
- People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584 (2008) (identification testimony less likely to tip scales when identity is not seriously contested)