People v. Saulsberry, 2021 IL App (2d) 181027

Background

Defendant Chavez K. Saulsberry was tried (Nov. 2015) for a 2005 drive-by shooting that killed Michael Moore and wounded Jamarain Tuggles; jury convicted him of first‑degree murder and attempted murder and found he personally discharged a firearm.
Key State witnesses were cooperating gang members: Ezequiel Rivera (driver) testified defendant fired from a green van while the group was “hunting” rivals; Rivera had received concessions for cooperation.
Roman Lucio (cooperator) testified that, after the shooting, Quentin told him to shake defendant’s hand and said defendant "took care of it;" defense objected to that testimony as hearsay.
A potential occurrence witness, Jaroslaw Czapla, was subpoenaed but did not testify; defendant later claimed Czapla’s prior testimony (from a codefendant’s trial) would have impeached Rivera.
Defense challenged: (1) trial counsel’s failure to object to Rivera’s “plotting” and “obey” testimony (other‑crimes/propensity); (2) admission of Lucio’s "handshake" statements as hearsay; (3) cumulative error; (4) posttrial counsel’s failure to preserve Czapla’s testimony; and (5) trial counsel’s failure to object to two rebuttal closing remarks that arguably commented on defendant’s silence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to Rivera’s “plotting” and “obey” testimony	Testimony was relevant to motive and was part of the continuous course of conduct; admissible.	Counsel was ineffective for failing to exclude improper other‑crimes and coercion evidence that prejudiced the jury about presence and intent.	Evidence admissible (motive/course of conduct); objection would be futile; no deficient performance or prejudice.
2) Admission of Lucio’s "handshake" statement (Quentin: “shake his hand” / “he took care of it”) as hearsay	Statements were non‑hearsay: a command and admissible to show effect on Lucio; tacit admission theory also asserted but not required.	Statements were prejudicial hearsay offered for truth (that defendant was shooter).	Admission proper as non‑hearsay offered for its effect on the listener; tacit‑admission theory rejected on facts; no abuse of discretion.
3) Posttrial counsel ineffective for failing to put Czapla’s prior testimony into the record	State: omission is curable in postconviction; defendant must show prejudice and a reasonable probability of a different trial outcome.	Failure to preserve and present Czapla’s inconsistent account (green two‑door hatchback) prejudiced appellate review and posttrial relief.	No prejudice shown — Czapla’s prior testimony (as represented) was corroborative and equivocal; unlikely to produce a different verdict or to have changed posttrial ruling.
4) Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to State rebuttal remarks (“Nobody testified the defendant didn’t do it” ; “Ask him”)	Remarks were isolated, responsive to defense argument, and did not make evidence closely balanced; no reversible prejudice.	Remarks improperly commented on defendant’s right not to testify and counsel was ineffective for not objecting.	Comments were improper and cautioned against, but isolated and not prejudicial given the substantial corroborating evidence; no ineffective‑assistance relief.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged ineffective‑assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
People v. Jackson, 205 Ill. 2d 247 (Ill. 2001) (Illinois application of Strickland standard)
People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112 (Ill. 2020) (standard for prejudice from prosecutorial remarks and related ineffective‑assistance analysis)
People v. Pikes, 2013 IL 115171 (Ill. 2013) (course‑of‑conduct/continuing narrative exception to other‑crimes rule)
People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311 (Ill. 2010) (appellate courts may address clear and obvious unbriefed errors in limited circumstances)
People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53 (Ill. 2003) (analysis of prosecutorial misconduct and closing‑argument limits)