People v. Ward
2011 IL 108690
| Ill. | 2011Background
- In June 2003, L.S. reported a violent sexual assault by Ward and the DNA matched Ward; Ward was charged and acquitted on that offense.
- DNA from L.S. also matched DNA from an earlier 2002 assault on M.M., leading to M.M.'s criminal sexual assault charge against Ward.
- For M.M.'s case, the State sought to admit L.S.'s testimony under section 115–7.3 to show Ward's propensity to commit sex crimes, arguing similarity, timing, and other factors.
- The trial court admitted the other-crimes evidence after balancing probative value against potential prejudice, citing proximity in time, similarity, and other circumstances.
- During trial, the State moved to bar Ward from introducing his acquittal in L.S.’s case; the court allowed the bar, keeping acquittal out of the jury context.
- Ward was convicted of M.M.'s assault and sentenced to 25 years; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and the denial of acquittal evidence, and Ward appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether barring acquittal evidence was an abuse of discretion | Ward: exclusion prejudiced defense by limiting context of L.S.'s testimony | People: acquittal evidence could confuse jury and was not probative | Yes; exclusion was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Illinois section 115–7.3 permits acquittal evidence in rebuttal | Ward: acquittal evidence rebutts propensity inference | People: acquittal evidence not relevant to rebuttal of propensity | Statutory framework permits rebuttal evidence if relevant and admissible under rules |
| Whether admission of the acquittal evidence would be harmless | Ward: acquittal evidence is necessary context to avoid prejudice | People: limiting instructions mitigate prejudice | Not harmless; requires reversal and new trial with acquittal evidence admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1948) (propensity evidence carries risk of prejudice; disallowance reduces confusion)
- Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159 (Ill. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Lindgren, 79 Ill. 2d 129 (Ill. 1980) (limits on other-crimes evidence to show propensity)
- Bedoya, 325 Ill. App. 3d 926 (Ill. App. 2001) (fairness may require disclosure of acquittal when other-crimes evidence admitted improperly)
- Overton, 281 Ill. App. 3d 209 (Ill. App. 1996) (reversal when other-crimes evidence admitted for nonpropensity purposes and prejudice shown)
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1990) (limits and context for acquittal information in rebuttal evidence)
- People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159 (Ill. 2003) (upholds balancing test for 115–7.3 and admissibility framework)