People v. Rosado, 2017 IL App (1st) 143741

Defendant Joe Rosado faced multiple drug-sale charges arising from transactions on March 18, March 23, and March 29, 2011; the March 29 case was tried first and resulted in an acquittal.
The State then tried Rosado for the March 23 sale; at that trial the State introduced testimony about the March 29 sale as other-crimes evidence to prove identity.
The trial court admitted the March 29 evidence over Rosado’s objection but refused to allow Rosado to tell the jury he had been acquitted of the March 29 charge.
Officer Gonzalez (undercover buyer) was the key witness identifying Rosado for the March 23 transaction; other officers provided peripheral surveillance testimony. No physical evidence tied the items or marked money to Rosado.
The jury convicted Rosado for the March 23 sale; he post-trial challenged admission of the March 29 evidence and the court’s exclusion of his acquittal. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of March 29 testimony as other-crimes evidence (identity)	March 29 sale corroborates officers’ identification and shows a buyer–seller relationship, supporting identity.	March 29 was a later incident and cannot logically bolster identification at an earlier date; admission was more prejudicial than probative.	Reversed: admission was an abuse of discretion — evidence of a later sale did not logically enhance identification and was unduly prejudicial.
Exclusion of evidence that defendant was acquitted of March 29 charge	Acquittal was not directly relevant to identity; excluding it was permissible.	Acquittal was highly probative on identification and necessary to give context and fairly impeach the State’s key witness.	Reversed: trial court abused its discretion in excluding proof of the acquittal; acquittal was highly probative on identity and fairness required disclosure.
Judicial reassignment on remand	Reassignment not authorized by Rule 366 in criminal cases; appellate court should not direct reassignment.	Reassignment appropriate because trial judge made comments suggesting bias and reversed earlier evidentiary rulings without explanation.	Affirmed reassignment: appellate court may direct reassignment under Rule 366; reassignment warranted to avoid appearance of bias.

Placek v. People, 184 Ill. 2d 370 (other-crimes evidence inadmissible to show propensity; must be weighed for probative value vs prejudice)
Donoho v. People, 204 Ill. 2d 159 (other-crimes evidence admissible for non-propensity purposes like identity but must meet probative-prejudice test)
Vazquez v. People, 180 Ill. App. 3d 270 (prior earlier sale admissible to bolster identification where it created recognition before the charged sale)
Bedoya v. People, 325 Ill. App. 3d 926 (reversal where jury was not told defendant had been acquitted of an offense used as other-crimes evidence)
Ward v. People, 2011 IL 108690 (trial court abused discretion by excluding evidence of prior acquittal where its omission distorted context and prejudiced defendant)
Castleberry v. People, 2015 IL 116916 (discussion of appellate authority; cited regarding limits of Rule 615 and appellate powers)