People v. Allen

ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK OF OF THE STATE THE PEOPLE ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant. S. 4—00—0786 No.

Fourth District 10, 2002. Opinion filed December MYERSCOUGH, EJ., specially concurring. Keleigh Daniel D. Yuhas Biggins, and L. of Appellate both State Defender’s

Office, Springfield, of appellant. for (Norbert Schmidt, Attorney, Springfield Goetten, John E of State’s J. Biderman, Kathy Attorneys Shepard, Appellate Robert J. and all of State’s Office, counsel), People. Frosecutor’s for the opinion JUSTICE TURNER delivered the of the court: In February the State charged defendant, Allen, Mark S. (720 3.1(a) (West aggravated with unlawful restraint ILCS 5/10 — 2000)) (720 2(a)(5) (West 2000)). aggravated and kidnaping ILCS 5/10— trial, After a July 2000 found guilty charges. of both joint hearing At a in September the trial court denied defendant’s posttrial motion and sentenced him aas habitual criminal under sec- (Code) (720 tion 33B—1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 ILCS 5/33B—1 (West 2000)) aggravated kidnaping prison conviction to life in the possibility parole. without (1) a appeals, arguing he was denied fair trial because improperly propensity

the State used other-crimes evidence to show to (2) crimes, prosecutor improper commit made statements in his (3) closing argument, and his enhanced sentence based on his habitual criminal Jersey, status is unconstitutional under v. New Apprendi U.S. 147 L. Ed. 2d 120 S. Ct. 2348 We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND case, L., The victim in this a 14-year-old Lanphier High student, School gave following testimony as to the oc- events that curred on ended at 3:12 p.m., School and Kristi talked a friend for with about to minutes after school. On cross- minutes 5 to 10 an additional spent then examination, she testified she friend, talking with a After a friend. get to ride home with trying walked, noticed she walking home. As she began she left school lot. parking basketball-hoops in the truck purple her. A alongside pulled up the lot and eventually left The truck street, no. replied and she asked if she knew man inside the truck no said ride home. Kristi if needed a then asked she The man appeared driveway pulled into kept walking. The truck then leaving. be her walk, stop truck behind heard the continued to she

As Kristi kept again said no and asked her to come here. She and then someone throat, her, a knife to her up put behind walking. Then the man came five to six this. The knife was about her if she wanted and asked the truck. no, get her to into and the man told long. inches She said walked to her throat and her the knife He his arm around with put the truck passenger side of put man her in the her to his truck. The her, and not to hurt got driver’s She asked him and then side. he not hurt her. worry her because would he told to 20 minutes drove around the area for about The man then lived, where she eventually He asked her saying without word. wrong to a 17th portion He then went replied she 17th Street. Park, Street, near Fairview him her home was and when she informed Springfield, Street in directly her Street and Griffith took 17th truck, and Illinois, which was near her home. He slowed down unlock, jumped out and ran home. when she heard the door she Lanham, Kristi sister, at home she arrived. Lindsey Her was when hap- her what mother, Campbell, her Linda at work and told called home, Jody Campbell, upon arrived and pened. stepfather, Kristi’s police. hearing happened, what called January after the police Kristi to the station several times went mug 18, 2000, occasion, On one she looked at several shot incident. her. no of the man who had assaulted photograph books but found mug in the books. among shots photograph Defendant’s was 4, 2000, Pellegrini Kristi February Stephen presented On Detective picked picture men. Kristi out the photographic lineup with a with six him in a and would like see of defendant but stated she was unsure to the station to lineup. February again police On Kristi went in the lineup as the man lineup. view She identified defendant trial, At Kristi day, next identified defendant’s truck. truck. The she her his truck. the man forced into identified defendant as who 21, 2000, April stated. On charged The State as limine, introduction of seeking prohibit in defendant filed motion (People assault conviction aggravated criminal sexual the nature (Cir. Co.)) Allen, No. 90—CF—627 Sangamon Ct. for which he was on an electronic monitoring device on January

The trial court a hearing held on defendant’s motion in limine at (Vicki) T, which voir dire of Victoria crime, the victim of the 1990 was 8, 1990, allowed. Vicki on September testified that employed she was Scampi’s, at which was located at Second Street and North Grand in Springfield, time, Avenue Illinois. At years Vicki was old. got p.m. She off work at began walking boyfriend’s to her home at 2335 North Fourth walking Street. As she was in a parking lot, she noticed a Chevy maroon and Caprice silver Classic slowed down behind her. A stopped man the car alongside her stepped out of it. The man carrying eight knife about six to in length. inches The man put the knife to her get throat and told her to into the car. The man car, drove the holding Vicki close to him with the knife to her throat. driving, While the man her, told her going was not to hurt just rob her. Vicki noticed what “appeared to be a plastic pistol” silver on the passenger side floor. After driving, about five minutes of they went to a wooded clothes, area. The man made her take off her and then he sexually her, assaulted her. After he assaulted told her she just could get leave but then told her to back in the car. He then drove around the woods until she was lost. Vicki identified defendant as the man who assaulted her. comparing testimony

After Vicki’s January 18, with Kristi’s statement to the police, the trial court found the evidence of the prior crime except admissible for portion the sexual assault of the crime. testimony The court noted the operandi, went modus and it ap- plying less-stringent degree-of-identity standard between the two crimes because the evidence went to state of mind and not identity. At evidence, trial after the presence State’s the trial court outside noted it had ruling motion, reevaluated its on the applied the stringent standard, more and found the evidence still admissible. trial, July At the Lindsey. Lindsey State first called testi- January fied that on talking phone she was on the when her sister crying p.m. get came about 4:25 off told her to phone and lock all the Lindsey requested, doors. did as and Kristi called Lindsey their mother. stepfather Kristi’s arrived home shortly thereafter.

Linda next testified that in she was at work when a daughter phone crying coworker told her that her something wrong. approximately p.m. was The call at 4:25 Linda had a time understanding crying difficult Kristi because of the but understood had picked up knifepoint someone Kristi after school at put her immediately in a truck. Linda left work and arrived again someone her mother told later. Kristi 10 to 15 minutes home from school. way her home on knifepoint her in a truck put had police tree in the back. a truck had Christmas the Kristi stated Linda the incident. about questions Kristi and asked then arrived man, including description a gave police Kristi testified wearing brown coat. he fact was p.m. to 4:30 8:30 a.m. generally he worked

Jody then testified time, he 18, 2000, at his normal January on he arrived home When hysteri- truck, crying came to the door began unloading his and Kristi something to tell him. had him to come in because she cally told her in a house, man had forced and Kristi told him a Jody in the went down, sit told her to calm way Jody home. knifepoint truck at on the Jody then everything she could. couch, try to remember remembered. She what she Jody then asked Kristi police. called the plate letters of the license and the last two purple said the truck Jody and short. man as in his fifties Kristi described the were “SU.” call. phone 45 minutes after his testified the arrived about police testified that on Janu- police April Smiddy officer next Springfield regarding she received a call ary 18, p.m., at a little before responded call and the victim kidnaping. She to the ascertained happened. what had Kristi Kristi. She then discussed with Kristi knifepoint way on her forced into a truck at described how she was Kristi pocketknife. home Kristi described the knife as from school. around the man for to 30 also stated she had been driven p.m. and 4:15 occurred between 3:30 minutes and that offense medium-length with the man as in his midfifties p.m. Kristi described inches, hair, and medium build. The man feet gray approximately sunglasses clip on them. She described glasses also had with a seats, shift, color; a stick bucket purple truck as an unusual with hanging from rearview on it air freshener with an Indian head back; letters of the mirror, tree in the and the last and a Christmas plate license were “SU.” a purple testified he had seen defendant drive

Matthew Lukow had January On Lukow Ranger Ford several occasions. pine branches parked defendant’s truck in front of his home with seen feet from the truck bed. sticking up about two assigned investigate Pellegrini testified he was Detective and had case. On interviewed kidnaping identify anyone did not mug her examine shot books. Kristi February Pellegrini went to books. On Detective meeting description pickup and noticed place employment February 4, photographic he conducted a given by On Kristi. minutes, looking pictures at the for several men. After lineup six Kristi selected defendant requested but to see him in a physical lineup. February 8, 2000, On Pellegrini Detective conducted a physical lineup. looked at all the and immediately individuals identified defendant as the man who kidnaped her knifepoint.

Defendant’s truck was confiscated. The truck’s bed contained pine needles. The truck’s plate license was “8175SU.” Kristi identified the truck. gave testimony

Vicki then hearing similar that at the motion except the sexual assault was not mentioned. She identified defendant as the man who forced her into the car. presented testimony Knapp, Marvin supervisor at Owens and Miner. Knapp explained the

company’s time clock. Knapp testified the payroll sheet indicated that 18, 2000, on January defendant clocked at 7:17 a.m. and clocked out at 3:49 After p.m. p.m., he Randy saw Frederick and Charles “Tom” talking parking Stewart lot but did not see defendant. Dick, Jr.,

Charles Miner, worker at Owens and testified he worked from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. January 18, on day, 2000. On that defendant training was him. Dick seeing did not recall defendant leave. January

Stewart testified that on he talked with defendant and parking Frederick in the lot at Owens Miner from p.m. p.m. 3:50 during Defendant was in his truck the conversa- tion. Stewart stated defendant had p.m., clocked out at 3:49 he fol- out, lowed defendant and then went back in at 4 p.m. to clock out. As he leaving, was heading saw defendant on Sangamon west Avenue. Stewart further testified defendant did not have a Christmas tree in the back of his truck. He also testified jeans defendant wearing and a flannel shirt with a liner. gave

Frederick testimony similar that defendant clocked out at 3:49 p.m. while he and Tom 4 p.m. clocked out at He stated the three had started their vehicles and then walked back to the door where they talked until 4 p.m. Frederick stated the last time he saw January defendant on was when defendant getting on Frederick, off Sangamon According Interstate 55 Avenue. he and get go work, Tom had tried to defendant to to a bar after but defendant declined, stating had he had to home p.m. be his because stepdaughter had school. Frederick also testified defendant was wear- jeans ing plaid blue and a blue insulated flannel shirt. He did acknowledge defendant used to jacket got wear brown before he blue shirt. wife, Allen,

Defendant’s January 18, 2000, Sue testified on truck did not contain a tree. January 18, Christmas She also testified Tuesdays and on p.m. at 5 dinner was Tuesday ar- She stated school. Thursdays daughter’s of her because shoes, a wearing black He was day. p.m. around 4:40 rived home plaid and a blue T-shirt, hat, shirt, a baseball a colored flannel doors were on the truck’s the locks jacket. also testified insulated She manual. Jack, she had school Stacy stated stepdaughter,

Defendant’s p.m. at 5 had dinner her mother p.m., at 6 and thus p.m. and 4:45 p.m. 4:40 home between defendant arrived She stated goatee. date, a full mustache defendant had On that police Melton, Springfield for the evidence technician Norville truck. Melton lifted processed defendant’s department, testified he possible car for truck and vacuumed the fingerprints from the some and the filters fingerprints samples. He then sent hair and fiber analysis. stated he was for He to the crime lab from the vacuum fingerprints. with the no matches were established informed 10, 2000, he detective, July on Lowe, testified Terry private then to Oil and p.m. from work GB at 4:05 defendant’s starting drove On 32 minutes. trip The 10.2 miles and took to home. defendant’s Oil 2000, from GB to 16, he took a different route May defendant’s house date, from GB Oil to get house. On that the time to six minutes less. Police with the Illinois State Knight, Kenneth forensic scientist belonged filters Lab, none collected Crime testified hairs wear- Further, found on the clothes Kristi was to Kristi. no hairs were January 18, ing carrying on bag and the book she was Langster rebuttal, Amy police department In detective Springfield 21 by and both took drove both routes driven Lowe testified she p.m. the second at 4:43 trip the first at 4:04 began minutes. She School, Lanphier High She drove from defendant’s work p.m. also mentioned, dropped to where Kristi was of the streets Kristi past some 22 minutes. On trip That took off, and then to defendant’s home. work to the date, Langster drove from defendant’s another Detective 11 minutes. trip and that took hoops, parking lot with the basketball July 13, 2000, charges. On of both guilty The found defendant 9, August 2000, the State filed a motion. On posttrial defendant filed a At offender classification. defendant’s habitual statement as to (1) post- denied defendant’s hearing, the trial court September 2000 (3) (2) criminal, and motion, a habitual trial found defendant was kidnaping imprisonment parole him to life without sentenced motion to denied defendant’s conviction. The trial court also appeal This followed. reconsider sentence.

780

II. ANALYSIS A. Modus Operandi argues he was denied a fair trial because Vicki’s testimony was inadmissible primarily other-crimes evidence. The State argues the evidence was admissible under the operandi excep- modus tion. prosecution may generally not show a defendant commit crime,

ted another in an attempt prove committed the crime charged. People Biggers, 116, v. Ill. App. 474, 273 3d 652 N.E.2d (1995). Yet, 478 evidence of other crimes is admissible where relevant for a purpose other than to crime, show the propensity to commit including operandi. People modus Rohlfs, 322 Ill. App. 3d (2001). However, N.E.2d the fact two crimes involve the same modus operandi justify does not admission question where no about or identity, mistake, intent-lack of presented. Biggers, 273 Ill. App. 3d at Identity 652 N.E.2d at 479. is in issue whenever a defendant denies he was the perpetrator. Biggers, Ill. App. 3d at 124, 652 N.E.2d at 479.

Here, presented defense, asserting an alibi he was the perpetrator. hearing While at the on the motion in limine the trial determined operandi court the modus going evidence was not identity agreed, and the State the trial court ruling reevaluated its the motion after hearing testimony some of the presented at A trial. subject motion in limine remains to reconsideration the court throughout the trial. Cardiology, Schuler v. Mid-Central Ill. App. 729 N.E.2d In reevaluating the order on limine, the motion in the trial court noted it better understood the prosecution nature and the applied defense then the more stringent standard of similarity. apply Courts a more stringent similarity standard of when the State operandi uses modus evidence to prove identity. People Butler, v. 31 Ill. App. 334 N.E.2d (1975); Graham, Cleary M. of & Graham’s Handbook Illinois (7th 1999). § 404.5, Evidence Thus, contrary ed. argument, the trial court did not admit the other-crimes solely evidence purpose for the of the showing two crimes had the operandi. same modus further contends the other-crimes evidence was

inadmissible because the two high degree offenses did not bear a of similarity. prove identity, strong To and of persuasive showing similarity charged between the crime and the other-crimes evidence present. high degree must be A similarity prov of because required ing identity operandi under a modus theory involves reliance on the the activity earmarks pattern of criminal a distinctive

inference that However, the group. or individual particular work of a as the crimes dissimilarity some identity because exact, rigorous one of test is not Robinson, People crimes. independent between two always will exist 656 N.E.2d Ill. 2d exist, the the two crimes links between distinctive Where definite However, if no of dissimilarities. outweigh a number link would of the circumstances was unique totality and the particular factor of the similari destroy the effect may probative, dissimilarities few at 479. 652 N.E.2d App. 273 Ill. 3d at Biggers, ties. crimes oc- following both to the similarities: points

The State Springfield, of both time in the same area curred about the same aby followed walking, both were young females were victims were the throats held a knife to the man alighted, which a man vehicle from vehicle, both victims victims, into a both were forced of both victims released, victims identi- and both eventually were driven around perpetrator. the fied defendant as 10 years the crimes occurred

Defendant notes the dissimilarities: victims; vehicle; way perpetra- the type the the the apart; ages the knife; the manner victims; length type tor the approached drove; a pistol victim perpetrator in treated the while which crime; charged not in the in the other crime but vehicle her, area, sexually assaulted to a and defendant drove Vicki wooded in city, while the man her outside of the and then abandoned her off near dropped around and then charged crime drove victim her home. to “earmark” so distinctive as do not find the two crimes

We single individual. The fact victim them as the work charged crime was the victim in the other crime was assaulted while in dissimilarity. Moreover, unharmed the manner ais substantial victims, treated the victims dur perpetrator approached the which the crimes, Additionally, victims was different. ing the and released the nature, i.e., using a knife general most of the are similarities case, In walking alone into a this who is vehicle. force individual of the similarities. destroyed the effect dissimilarities but was not crime was admitted Because the evidence of other under its admission sufficiently operandi, to establish modus similar error. exception com- warrants colleague’s special concurrence Additionally, our the State did acknowledge that concurrence fails to special ment. The crime, assault of of the sexual not seek to admit evidence Presumably, evidence. the admission of such the court did not allow of how this could conceive the trial court neither the State nor evidence so dissimilar to the second offense could be admissible in the State’s case in Neither can agree we. We cannot with our col- chief. league that carving out the prior dissimilarities of the offense to make it present similar to the offense renders similarities admissible under operandi. modus

In passing, the State remarks the other-crimes evidence also went stated, to state of mind. As defendant’s defense was alibi. The State does not suggest how the other-crimes evidence went to defendant’s state Thus, of mind in this case. the other-crimes evidence was not admissible under the state of exception. mind any

The argues State error in admitting the other-crimes evidence was harmless. While the erroneous admission other-crimes evidence ordinarily reversal, calls for the evidence must have been material factor in that, the defendant’s evidence, conviction such without the likely verdict would have been different. People Hall, v. 194 Ill. 2d 305, (2000). 339, 743 N.E.2d argues

Defendant his conviction must be reversed because it was a propensity-based conviction. In support argument, of his points two instances where prosecutor closing arguments referred to prior crime and then called defendant a “bad man.” major

The concern with other-crimes evidence is always that the may trier of fact draw the inference that because a man has commit ted other likely crimes he is to have committed the current crime. Overlin, v. People App. 241 Ill. 3d 608 N.E.2d Here, jury the trial court instructed the to limit its consideration of the other-crimes evidence to the operandi issues modus and state of mind. Although improper those reasons were evidence, based on the the instruction did reduce the jury likelihood the considered the other- (see crimes propensity evidence as to commit crimes People Luczak, (1999)). 306 Ill. App. 714 N.E.2d 1001-02 Faith in to follow instructions and separate issues is the cornerstone Luczak, our jury system. 306 Ill. App. 3d at 714 N.E.2d at Here, the closely evidence was not balanced. The victim identified photographic in-person defendant in a lineup, lineup, and in court. Additionally, her detailed description pickup bolstered her identification.

Moreover, regarding the evidence the other crime was limited to the victim. The trial court did not allow a trial within trial. Accordingly, find beyond we the error to be harmless a reasonable doubt. The verdict evidence, would have been the same without the and thus is not reversal warranted. the Prosecutor Statements Improper

B. be reversed his should next asserts conviction argu closing in his improper comments made prosecutor because by failing issue has waived this argues ment. State the is consider we should argues in court. Defendant object the trial 615(a)). (134 R. rule Ill. 2d plain under the error sue following prosecutor’s the challenges the of propriety statements: out You remember there. protect [T.]s need to the Vicki

“We also [defendant, in testimony yesterday. years ago Ten this her her, work, up put a walkinghome from came [T.] while Vicki was around, put knife her in his car and drove her to her throat and years January in of thing the ten later happened exact same year Kristi [L.]. this

Folks, a that’s bad man.” prosecutor

The later stated: there, gentlemen, retire you

“Ladies and when back remember sitting there, girl. happened that scared Remember what [L.] Remember, poor in 1990 a [T.] to her on Vicki years up. girl, grown scared it’s ten later. She’s Remember now did to sitting testifying [defendant them there about what this them.

He opportunity is a bad man. Youhave to convicthim of these an offenses, you do need to that.” prosecutor’s

. The as man reference a bad based However, light persuasive in the improper. another crime was of instruction, the we find testimony presented identification trial. the few references did not affect the fairness of defendant’s Thus, we decline to plain review this issue as error.

C. Habitual Criminal Sentence fife argues imprisonment Defendant last his sentence of without of possibility parole the under section 33B—1 the Code unconsti Apprendi. Specifically, tutional under he contends the statute is a findings it does the that make require unconstitutional because indictment, defendant habitual criminal to be included in the submit jury, proved beyond ted to reasonable doubt. We review Fisher, constitutionality People statute de novo. Ill. 448, 705 N.E.2d 71-72 following: provides

Section 33B—1 the Code “(a) Every any in or person has been twice convicted state who elements as federal court an offense that contains the same felony, now classifiedin Illinois a Class X criminal sexual offense as murder, assault, degree first and is aggravated [kidnaping,] or assault[,] thereafter convicted X felony, of a Class criminal sexual degree murder, or convictions, first prior committed after adjudged shall be an habitual criminal. (b) 2 prior convictions need not been for of- have the same fense. (c) Any convictions which result from or are connected with the transaction, same or from result offenses committed at the same time, purposes shall be counted [s]ection for of this one as conviction. (d) [ajrticle apply This following shall not each of the unless requirements are satisfied:

(1) the third offense was committed after effective date of Act; this (2) third years offense committed within of the date conviction, that judgment was entered on the provided, however, spent custody counted; that time be shall not

(3) third offense was committed after conviction on the offense; second

(4) the second offensewas committed after convictionon the first offense. (e) Except penalty anyone when the death imposed, adjudged an habitual criminal imprisonment.” shall be sentenced to 720 life (West2000). ILCS 5/33B—1 In the Apprendi, Supreme Court held the fifth and fourteenth (U.S. the Const., amendments to United States Constitution amends. XIV) “\p\ther V, that, require conviction, any than the a prior fact of fact that the a penalty beyond prescribed increases for crime the statu- tory proved maximum must be to a jury, beyond submitted and added.) reasonable (Emphasis Apprendi, 490, doubt.” 530 U.S. at 147 455, L. Ed. 2d at 120 S. In support prior-crimes Ct. at 2362-63. the exception, Supreme Court noted not recidivism does relate to offense, commission prior and convictions have been entered pursuant proceedings procedural safeguards with substantial 488, their 453-54, own. 530 147 at S. Apprendi, U.S. at Ed. 2d 120 L. Ct. at 2361-62. recognized Ap

Those same reasons for the recidivism exception prendi apply prior provid to section 33B—1 as well. The convictions ing the sentence 33B—1 basis for defendant’s life under section were through proceedings procedural safeguards. obtained with substantial Givens, 910, People 913-14, 436, See v. 319 Ill. 3d 747 N.E.2d 439 App. 3(c)(8) (2001) (addressing constitutionality of section 5—5— 3(c)(8) (West 1996)) (730 Unified ILCS Code of Corrections 5/5 —5— Additionally, underlying under the dates of the actions Apprendi). Moreover, those can be from those proceedings. convictions ascertained

785 do not 33B—1 of the Code findings by section required the factual Givens, 319 Ill. offense. See underlying relate the commission of does Accordingly, Apprendi we find 914, 3d at 747 N.E.2d App. Code unconstitutional. 33B—1 of the render section See the same conclusion. have reached the other districts We note 1195, 435, Pickens, 429, 3d 752 N.E.2d App. 323 Ill. People v. (2001) (Fifth 557, 563, 755 Boston, App. 324 Ill. 3d District); People v. (Second (2001) Briley, 326 District); Morissette v. 1058, 1062 N.E.2d (2001) (Third District); 333, 335 Ill. App. 3d N.E.2d 1239-40 Jones, 764 N.E.2d People App. Ill. District). (2002) (First

III. CONCLUSION stated, judgment. reasons affirm the trial court’s For the we Affirmed.

KNECHT, J., concurs. MYERSCOUGH, concurring: specially PRESIDING JUSTICE sufficiently The similar to establish other-crimes evidence may gone have to state of mind as well. Both operandi modus Springfield, time in the same area of crimes occurred about same both females were fol- young walking, victims were and were both alighted, lowed a vehicle the man held a from which driver victims, into knife the throats forced of both both victims were released, vehicle, eventually victims were driven around both both victims defendant as the perpetrator. identified

The dissimilarities are difference. Defendant distinctions without obviously driving years crime a different vehicle—the occurred inches, only perhaps later. The distinction in the knife a matter of victims’ guess parts. a mere inaccurate no evidence There was of a both type very different of knife. victims were Moreover, young ages there was generally indistinguishable. women gun. Ill. pistol only toy App. no in the first See 335 plastic incident— (“ ”). 3d at ‘a plastic pistol’ 776. silver addition, stating incorrect in that neither majority clearly In of how the sexual assault State nor the trial court could conceive therefore, did and, crime admissible the State could be seek assault. The record states to admit evidence sexual in limine pretrial that court’s on defendant’s motion ruling the trial conviction, previous includ- allowed for the admission assault, he was on ing testify the sexual if defendant chose to that electronic monitoring at the time of the second part crime as of his defense. The trial court if reasoned defendant testified being monitoring, electronic it be less prejudicial would to allow the State to introduce the evidence of the 1990 conviction than allow the speculate why toas defendant was on electronic monitoring. trial court further stated that the evidence its supported belief that run,” this second crime was a perhaps explaining “trial further why there However, was no assault in sexual the instant crime. did not testify, prior so sexual assault was not introduced.

I also believe reference to defendant as a man” “bad based on both fair outright. crimes was discourse. I would affirm ILLINOIS, THE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, PEOPLE STATE OF COOKSON,Defendant-Appellant. DONALD Fourth No. District 4—01—0765 Opinion December filed

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Allen

Court Name: Appellate Court of Illinois

Date Published: Dec 10, 2002

Citation: 780 N.E.2d 1133

Docket Number: 4 — 00 — 0786

Court Abbreviation: Ill. App. Ct.