People v. Serritella
2022 IL App (1st) 200072
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background:
- In January 1992, 15-year-old David Chereck was found strangled in Linne Woods (Cook County). No physical/DNA linked Serritella to the killing.
- Serritella (then ~49) made multiple statements over the years (1992, 1998 TV interview, 2004 recorded calls, 2013 call to victim’s mother) describing having seen the victim get into a white car; items recovered from Serritella’s storage included a vehicle ID for a white 1983 Chrysler, a stamped card with "Ricco/Rocco," and a handwritten "boy profile for exploitation."
- Two jailhouse informants (Andra Williams and Brad Janikowski) testified that Serritella confessed he had attempted to obtain oral sex from the victim, got into a fight, and strangled him.
- The State’s theory: the homicide was sexually motivated; proof relied on Serritella’s own admissions, informant testimony, the storage items, and circumstantial links (white car, statements).
- Bench trial in 2019 resulted in conviction for first-degree murder and a 45-year sentence; on appeal Serritella challenged multiple evidentiary rulings (other-acts evidence, victim-mother tape/comment, TV interview excerpts, and jailhouse informant testimony).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Serritella's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of T.C. testimony and the "boy profile" list (other-acts) | Admitted under Rule 404(b) to show motive, identity, modus operandi, continuing narrative, and to rebut defense | Improper propensity evidence (invoking 725 ILCS 5/115-7.3), irrelevant, too prejudicial | Admitted: court accepted State’s concession to rely on 404(b); evidence probative of motive and identity; no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of victim-mother’s taped statement accusing Serritella and his pause | Admitted not for truth but to show defendant’s pause (consciousness of guilt) and context for his denial | Statement prejudicial, irrelevant, violates personal-knowledge rule and tacit-admission doctrine | Admitted for non-hearsay purpose; trial court did not abuse discretion; tacit-admission argument forfeited (and Allen distinguishable) |
| Admission/extent of 1998 TV interview (Goudie) | Limited, edited portions appropriately admitted; agreement reached pretrial on which parts to play | Entire interview should have been excluded because reporter’s questions contained hearsay and prejudicial material | No reversible error: parties agreed to editing; court considered only the played portions and limited portions were used in argument |
| Admission of jailhouse informants (Williams, Janikowski) under 725 ILCS 5/115-21 | State met statutory safeguards and proved reliability at hearing; testimony relevant to motive/statement admissions | Informants unreliable: plea concessions, sentence reductions, transfers, possible coercion, and uncorroborated details | Testimony admitted: trial court conducted required reliability inquiry, found testimony credible; appellate court found no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159 (2003) (framework for admissibility of other-crimes evidence under Rule 404(b))
- People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52 (2001) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings—abuse of discretion)
- People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353 (1991) (high degree of identity required for modus operandi evidence; more general similarities suffice when rebutting mistaken identity about an object)
- People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584 (2008) (in bench trials, presumption that judge considered only properly admitted evidence and for limited purposes)
- People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094 (2014) (jailhouse informant testimony must be viewed with caution; credibility for factfinder)
- People v. Lara, 2012 IL 112370 (2012) (no requirement that independent evidence corroborate every detail of a confession)
- People v. Furby, 138 Ill. 2d 434 (1990) (same principle on corroboration of confessions)
- People v. Quintero, 394 Ill. App. 3d 716 (2009) (lower standard of distinctiveness when other-act evidence is used to rebut claims of mistaken identity concerning an object)