FOURTH DIVISION
FILED: June 14, 2007
No. 1-05-1640
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of Cook County, Illinois.
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 03 CR 24690
)
TRIANDUS TABB, ) Honorable James Egan,
) Judge Presiding.
Defendant-Appellant. )
JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the court:
Following a trial by jury, defendant, Triandus Tabb, was convicted of attempted first
degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and aggravated vehicular hijacking. The trial
court merged the first two convictions and defendant was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for
attempted first degree murder and 4 years' imprisonment for aggravated vehicular hijacking. The
trial court found that defendant had caused great bodily harm to the victim and ordered the
sentences be served consecutively pursuant to section 5-8-4(a) of the Unified Code of
Corrections. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(a) (West 2004).
On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it granted the State's
motion in limine, denying him the opportunity to use witness Norman Brown's juvenile
delinquency adjudication record to impeach the testimony of Brown and Eyvonne Ford; (2) the
trial court erred when it denied his motion for a directed verdict; (3) the State failed to prove him
1-05-1640
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the State's witnesses were not credible and the
identification of defendant as the offender was unreliable; (4) the trial court violated the one-act,
one-crime doctrine when it sentenced him for both aggravated battery with a firearm and
attempted first degree murder convictions; and (5) the trial court violated the ruling in Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), when it, rather than the
jury, made a factual finding of "severe bodily injury" and imposed consecutive sentences.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 6, 2003, at approximately 1:20 p.m, Salvador Gomez (the victim) was in
his car and stopped at a red light at the intersection of West 5lst Street and South Ashland
Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. While stopped, the victim was attacked and shot at by an armed
assailant who had threatened the victim and demanded he get out of his vehicle. Defendant, who
lived in the vicinity of the crime at the Daniel J. Nellum Group Home (the group home), was later
arrested for the crime.
The Motion in Limine
Before defendant’s trial began, the State presented an oral motion in limine to bar
testimony regarding Norman Brown's prior juvenile delinquency adjudications on the grounds that
the adjudications were irrelevant and highly prejudicial. Defense counsel argued that evidence
regarding Brown's prior finding of delinquency for possession of controlled substances was proper
for the purposes of impeachment. After argument on the issue, the trial court granted the State's
motion on the ground that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value.
The Jury Trial
-2-
1-05-1640
The victim testified that on September 6, 2003, at about 1:20 p.m., he was driving his
black GMC Yukon Denali sports utility vehicle on West 51st Street and South Ashland Avenue in
Chicago, Illinois. According to the victim, while he was stopped at a red light, a tall black man
wearing a white shirt and a white baseball jersey appeared at his open driver's-side window. The
victim testified that the man put a gun to his left temple and told him to "get out of the fucking
truck, mother fucker." The victim refused to do so and tried to pull the gun down, away from his
head. The victim testified that he kept his eyes on the gun and the offender's face. The victim
testified that he struggled with the man, but the assailant stepped back and fired into the truck,
shooting him twice in the stomach and once in the left arm.
The shooter ran away and the victim drove a few blocks west to the intersection of West
51st Street and South Paulina Avenue and called 911. The victim testified that he could not really
say how long his encounter with the assailant lasted, but finally explained it "could be five
seconds, could be ten seconds, I don't know." The victim admitted that during the encounter he
was scared for his life. On October 25, 2003, the victim went to the police station to view two
lineups. The victim stated that he did not identify anyone in the first lineup, but that he identified
defendant as the offender in the second lineup.
Norman Brown
Norman Brown testified that, at the time of the shooting, he and defendant were residents
of the group home, located at 1458 West 51st Street, which is overseen by the Illinois
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Brown testified that defendant had been
under the care of DCFS since the age of four and was a member of the Blackstone street gang.
-3-
1-05-1640
On the day of the shooting, only three boys resided at the group home, defendant, Brown, and
Isaac Prittard.
Brown explained that the group home was run by child care technicians who noted in a
log book the comings and goings of the boys. Brown testified that the boys were free to leave the
group home whenever they wanted before a 10:30 p.m. curfew. However, if one of the boys
wanted to leave after curfew, he did not have to "sneak" out, but could simply walk past the child
care worker on duty and out the back door. Brown testified that the child care worker would not
stop the boy from leaving, but would note it in the logbook, and then the child care worker would
file a report with the police. The police would then look for the boy.
Brown testified that on the day in question he, defendant, and Prittard left the group home
to get some cigarettes. As the three were walking back to the group home, they saw the victim in
his black Yukon Denali. Brown testified that when the victim stopped at a red light, defendant
pulled out a chrome pistol, shot at the victim three or four times, and ran away. Brown stated
that after the shooting, he ran back to the group home and did not recall seeing defendant again
until the next day.
During cross-examination, Brown confirmed that during a conversation with defendant's
counsel the day before trial, he said he did not know whether defendant had committed the crime
or not. In addition, Brown testified that he had a daily marijuana habit both at the time of the
offense and at the time of trial. Defense counsel questioned Brown extensively concerning his
drug use and whether he sold drugs to Eyvonne Ford, another State witness. The State objected
to this line of questioning.
-4-
1-05-1640
The trial court held a sidebar to argue the issue. The State argued that this line of
questioning was another attempt by the defense to introduce Brown's juvenile delinquency
adjudications, which were already addressed in the motion in limine. The State argued that if the
defense wanted to pursue this line of questioning, it would need an offer of proof. The trial court
found that because defense counsel's information that Brown sold drugs to Eyvonne Ford and that
she smoked crack was based solely on defense counsel's conversation with his client, and because
defense counsel was not offering to put his client on the stand to lay the foundation, that he could
not go any further with this line of questioning.
Eyvonne Ford
Eyvonne Ford, a 41-year-old woman, testified that she lived near the group home and that
she knew defendant, Brown, and Prittard because they would "sneak" out of the group home late
at night and go to her house to hang out with her 19-year-old son. Ford testified that she was so
close to defendant and Brown that they called her "Mom." Ford testified that she allowed the
boys to come into her home until a man from the group home asked her to stop.
Ford testified that on the day in question, she was walking on South Ashland Avenue
toward West 51st Street when she was approached by defendant, Brown, and Prittard. Ford
testified that defendant told her that he had just shot a "Scipe," which Ford understood to mean a
member of the street gang Satan Disciples. Ford testified that she knew that defendant, Brown,
and Prittard were members of the Blackstones street gang and that at the time of the shooting the
Blackstones were at war with the Satan Disciples. Ford testified that, at first, she doubted what
defendant told her because she knew him to be a liar.
-5-
1-05-1640
However, Ford testified that she spoke with her sister after speaking with defendant.
When she told her sister what defendant had said, her sister stated that she had seen a man lying
on the ground who had been shot near West 51st Street and South Paulina Avenue. Ford testified
that she and her sister went to the scene of the crime and spoke with a police officer who directed
her to the 9th District. Ford testified that she called the 9th District and told them that she had
information concerning the shooting.
Detective Will Svilar
Detective Will Svilar testified that he was assigned to investigate the shooting. Svilar
testified that he was informed that Ford had contacted the 9th District with information pertaining
to the shooting. During an interview with Ford, she gave Svilar two names and a nickname:
Norman Brown, Isaac Prittard, and defendant's nickname "Travo." Svilar testified that on
October 25, 2003, he went to the group home and placed Brown and Prittard under arrest. He
brought them to Area 1 and arranged for them to take part in a lineup.
Svilar testified that he was with the victim when he viewed the first lineup. The lineup
contained Brown, Prittard, and four other people. All six individuals stepped forward individually
and said "get out of the truck mother fucker." Svilar testified that at the conclusion of this lineup,
the victim was unable to identify anyone. Defendant subsequently entered the police station that
evening looking for Brown and Prittard. Svilar took defendant into custody and called the victim
back to the police station to view a second lineup, this time with defendant in the lineup. The
victim positively identified defendant as being the same man who had shot him.
The Motion for Directed Finding
-6-
1-05-1640
The State rested and defendant's counsel moved for a directed finding, arguing that the
State failed to show the requisite intent for a conviction of attempted first degree murder.
Defendant argued that the evidence presented by the State, including the location of the victim's
wounds, showed only an accidental shooting during a struggle for the gun. In addition, the
defense argued that the State failed to meet the elements for the charge of attempted vehicular
hijacking because the evidence only showed that the assailant told the victim to get out of his
truck. The defense argued that there was no evidence to show that the assailant intended to take
the victim’s truck after he got out. The defense also argued that the assailant did not explicitly
threaten physical harm. The defense argued that as a result, the State failed to establish the
elements of either attempted murder or attempted vehicular hijacking and a directed finding
should be entered with regard to both charges.
The State responded that it had presented sufficient evidence on the charge of attempted
first degree murder. With regard to the attempted vehicular hijacking charge, the State argued
that "[p]ointing a gun at a driver of a car and saying get out of car***. That alone is an attempt
to take a car from somebody." The trial judge denied defendant's motion on the grounds that the
State had presented enough evidence to establish the elements of both attempted first degree
murder and attempted aggravated vehicular hijacking.
Defendant’s Case
Valerie Panozzo, an assistant public defender with the Cook County public defender's
office, testified that she had a conversation with Brown on the first day of trial. Panozzo testified
that Brown said that he was closer to Prittard than defendant. Panozzo also testified that Brown
-7-
1-05-1640
stated that he did not see anything on the day of the shooting; that he did not see the person who
shot the victim; and that he did not see defendant with a gun.
Milot Cadichon, a Chicago police officer, testified that he witnessed the shooting.
Cadichon testified that on September 6, 2003, he was in the vicinity of West 51st Street and
South Ashland Avenue, on his way home from his second job. Cadichon testified that he was
stopped at a red light when he saw a black male walk up to the victim's car, pull out a silver gun,
and stick it in the driver's face. Cadichon testified that he was unable to cross the intersection to
help the victim, so he dialed 911 and told them that he was witnessing a carjacking. As he
continued to watch, he saw the victim and a black male struggling over the gun, and eventually
the black male stepped back and fired three to five shots into the car. Cadichon heard three to
five shots, then watched as the offender fled the scene in a Chevy or Buick. Cadichon testified
that the offender was a young black man, approximately 6 feet tall, weighing about 150 pounds
with hair in short, close braids going toward the back of his head.
Cadichon testified that later that day he was shown a photo array containing seven photos,
including photos of defendant, Brown, and Prittard. Cadichon testified that he identified Isaac
Prittard as the shooter and identified Brown as the man in the getaway car, but he did not identify
defendant. Cadichon also testified that on October 25, 2003, he viewed the first lineup and made
two identifications of people he saw at the scene of the shooting. One person was Brown and the
other was Isaac Prittard, but he could not make a positive identification as to the shooter.
Brian Gary, child care worker for DCFS employed at the group home, testified that at the
time of the shooting, defendant, Brown, and Prittard were residents of the group home. Gary
-8-
1-05-1640
testified that child care workers at the group home would make notations in a logbook
documenting the comings and goings of the boys. Gary testified that on the day in question, the
logbook stated that the first to leave the home was Brown at 12:30 p.m., followed by Prittard at
12:45 p.m., and lastly defendant at 1:45 p.m. Gary testified that he was the only person on duty
that day and stated that his testimony was solely based on the log book; he had no independent
recollection of the events of September 6, 2003. On cross-examination, the State pointed out that
the 4 p.m. entry indicated that Prittard was in the group home, but the logbook did not indicate
when he had returned. Similarly, the 4 p.m. logbook entry indicated that defendant was out on a
pass, while the 4 p.m. census sheet entry indicated that he was at the group home.
The Jury Verdict, Sentencing, and Posttrial Motions
After closing arguments, the jury received the case and found defendant guilty of
attempted first degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and attempted aggravated
vehicular hijacking. Defense counsel filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or, in the
alternative, a motion for a new trial. At the hearing on defendant's motions, defense counsel
argued that all of the State's witnesses presented contradictory testimony and that the State was
therefore unable to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court denied
defendant's motion, stating that there was enough evidence presented at trial for the jury to
convict.
During the sentencing hearing, the State argued that the court make a finding of severe
bodily injury, which would mandate that the attempted aggravated vehicular hijacking sentence be
served consecutively to the sentences for attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm.
-9-
1-05-1640
Defense counsel argued that the State's request was in violation of Apprendi because a finding of
severe bodily injury must be made by the jury. The trial court found that there was indeed a
severe bodily injury suffered by the victim. The trial court also found that:
"[A]s to the attempt murder and aggravated battery charges they will merge as
being for sentencing purposes I will sentence as to Count 1 and 2 to twelve years
in the Illinois Department of Corrections. And there will be a consecutive sentence
on Count 3 the attempt aggravated vehicular hijacking of four years in the Illinois
Department of Corrections."
On February 25, 2005, defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence and vacate
conviction. Defendant argued that his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm should be
vacated because the conviction was improper under the one-act, one-crime doctrine. Defendant
also argued that the imposition of consecutive sentences for the attempted first degree murder and
attempted aggravated vehicular hijacking convictions was in error for the following reasons: (1) a
judicial finding of severe bodily injury violated Apprendi; (2) defendant received no notice from
the State that it would be seeking consecutive sentencing and therefore was not given a
reasonable opportunity to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses in rebuttal of the State's
claim of severe bodily injury; and (3) the court's finding of severe bodily injury was not supported
by the evidence. The trial court denied the motion, finding that (1) defendant's conviction for
aggravated battery with a firearm did not violate the one-act, one-crime doctrine, as the trial court
merged the sentence for that conviction into the sentence for attempted first degree murder; (2)
the 12-year merged sentence took into consideration defendant's age and lack of criminal
-10-
1-05-1640
background; and (3) the finding of severe bodily harm was appropriate given the victim's trial
testimony regarding his hospital stay and recovery from the gunshot wounds. Defendant timely
appealed his conviction and sentence.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Right to Confront Witnesses
The first issue raised by defendant is the major issue on appeal. Defendant argues that the
trial court violated his sixth amendment right to confront his accusers when it refused to allow
him to impeach the testimony of the State’s witnesses with Brown’s prior adjudication of
delinquency. Defendant argues that the prior adjudication was necessary to show Brown’s lack of
veracity and prove the bias resulting from Ford’s need to procure drugs from Brown. Defendant,
citing People v. Triplett, 108 Ill. 2d 463, 486 (1985), argues that the trial court made “a
[c]onstitutional error of the first magnitude” and that “no amount of showing of want of prejudice
[could] cure it.”
Defendant asserts that he has an absolute and unqualified right to impeach the credibility
of witnesses against him. Defendant cites to several cases establishing the propriety of the
introduction of a witness’ prior adjudication of delinquency or drug use for impeachment. People
v. Strother, 53 Ill. 2d 95, 99 (1972); People v. Atkinson, 186 Ill. 2d 450, 461-62 (1999); People v.
Redmond, 146 Ill. App. 3d 259, 263 (1986); People v. Crisp, 242 Ill. App. 3d 652, 659 (1992);
Triplett, 108 Ill. 2d at 473-74. Defendant argues that these bases alone were sufficient to allow
examination of Brown’s prior adjudication.
Defendant argues that he was precluded from discovering additional evidence to make a
-11-
1-05-1640
preliminary showing that Brown received favorable treatment for his testimony or that he faced
the threat of charges, as this information was completely under the State’s control. Defendant
asserts that Brown’s prior adjudication provided the preliminary showing and the only other
means of determining if he had other charges dismissed was to ask Brown on the stand.
Defendant argues that this informal offer of proof was sufficient to allow use of the prior
adjudication to impeach Brown and Ford. Yamada v. Hilton Hotel Corp., 60 Ill. App. 3d 101,
110 (1977). Defendant asserts that his counsel’s comment that his conversations with defendant
elicited the information that Ford purchased drugs from Brown and was motivated to lie to
maintain her drug supply was an adequate offer of proof. Defendant argues that the trial court
erred in granting the motion in limine and later excluding questioning on this issue when he
provided the informal offer of proof.
The State argues that the trial court properly barred Brown’s prior adjudication of
delinquency because it represented a fishing expedition by defendant. The State argues that,
because defendant made no offer of proof at trial, he waived arguing the theories that Brown lied
to stay out of trouble or that Brown and Ford had a narcotics-based relationship. People v.
House, 197 Ill. App. 3d 1017, 1023 (1990). Counsel for defendant stood on his discussions with
defendant as his offer of proof, arguing that, even though defendant would not take the stand, that
was enough to allow his impeachment attempt. The State concludes that since there was no
evidence to support defendant’s contention, the argument was either waived or the evidence was
properly excluded as prejudicial with little to no probative value.
The State distinguishes Triplett, defendant’s central authority in his argument, from this
-12-
1-05-1640
case and argues that defendant’s reliance is misplaced. A witness in Triplett was in the custody of
the Department of Corrections at the time of the defendant’s trial as a result of his adjudication of
delinquency. Triplett, 108 Ill. 2d at 474. Furthermore, the witness had 10 juvenile delinquency
petitions filed against him between the time of the crime in question and the defendant’s trial and
had been adjudicated delinquent on two of them while the State retained leave to reinstate four of
the petitions. Triplett, 108 Ill. 2d at 474. The Triplett court found that the defendant was denied
his right to confront the witness against him because he was precluded from cross-examining the
witness about the 10 juvenile delinquency petitions filed against him and the numerous ways the
witness could be influenced to testify to what the State wanted. Triplett, 108 Ill. 2d at 486.
Therefore, the State concludes, the facts of this case, i.e., that Brown had a prior adjudication for
delinquency, no petitions pending and was not under the control of the Department of
Corrections, distinguish it from Triplett.
The trial court has discretion to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination to limit
possible harassment, prejudice, jury confusion, witness safety, or repetitive and irrelevant
questioning, and we review a defendant’s claim of a violation of the confrontation clause under
the abuse-of-discretion standard. People v. Blue, 205 Ill. 2d 1, 13-14 (2001). As summarized in
Blue, cross-examination is “‘the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth’”,
and latitude is granted for counsel to explore the partiality of the witness. Blue, 205 Ill. 2d at 12,
quoting 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence §1367, at 32 (Chadbourn rev. ed. 1974). However, the Blue
court also notes that this latitude is “‘[s]ubject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to
preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation.’” Blue, 205 Ill. 2d at 12, quoting Davis v.
-13-
1-05-1640
Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347, 353-54, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 1110 (1974).
A judge may limit the scope of cross-examination and unless the defendant can show his
or her inquiry is not based on a remote or uncertain theory, a court’s ruling limiting the scope of
examination will be affirmed. People v. Phillips, 186 Ill. App. 3d 668, 678 (1989). When a line
of questioning is objected to or denied by the trial court, the defendant must set forth an offer of
proof either to convince the trial court to allow the testimony or to establish on the record that the
evidence was directly and positively related to the issue of bias or motive to testify falsely.
Phillips, 186 Ill. App. 3d at 678. A formal offer of proof is typically required; however, an
informal offer of proof, involving counsel’s summary of what the proposed evidence might prove,
may be sufficient if specific and not based on speculation or conjecture. Phillips, 186 Ill. App. 3d
at 679.
In Phillips, defense counsel made only informal offers of proof regarding two witnesses’
alleged drug use and suspension for taking a bribe. Defense counsel argued that the impeaching
evidence was not based on mere rumor or speculation but based on documented evidence and
interviews with witnesses. The trial court found that defense counsel merely gave a brief
description of what the proposed evidence would show and did not provide a detailed explanation
as to how witnesses knew of the proposed evidence or provide any tangible evidence. Phillips,
186 Ill. App. 3d 677-78. Therefore, this court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the alleged
impeaching matters were based on conjecture and exclusion of that testimony was not an abuse of
discretion. Phillips, 186 Ill. App. 3d at 679.
We disagree with the State that defendant did not submit any offer of proof. However, we
-14-
1-05-1640
find that counsel’s informal offer of proof was properly rejected by the trial court and
insufficiently specific to preserve the alleged error for review. Defense counsel’s informal offer of
proof was, like that in Phillips, simply a conclusory statement based on his conversation with
defendant and speculation. Counsel did not give details about how defendant knew Ford relied
upon Brown for her needed drug supply, or that Brown was testifying to mollify the police and
stay out of trouble. Counsel revealed no specific information or testimony in support of his
contention.
We also agree with the State that Triplett is distinguishable from this case and does not
mandate reversal on constitutional grounds. The witness at question in Triplett was in custody at
the time of trial. The witness also had 10 separate petitions for juvenile delinquency against him,
with several that still could be reinstated by the State at the time of the trial. Brown had a
singular adjudication of juvenile delinquency for possession of a controlled substance. He was a
ward of the State at the time of trial, not under the custody of the Department of Corrections.
Counsel provided no offer of proof that Brown was motivated to testify falsely in exchange for
leniency from the police. The facts of this case, unlike those in Triplett, do not provide the
support for that claim or implicate constitutional protections.
Even if the exclusion of Brown’s prior adjudication of delinquency were improper, we find
that the exclusion would not be sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. House, 197 Ill.
App. 3d at 1023. There are three approaches to determine whether an error is harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt: (1) whether the error contributed to the conviction; (2) whether the other
evidence presented overwhelmingly supports conviction; and (3) whether the evidence that was
-15-
1-05-1640
excluded was duplicative or cumulative. People v. Gonzalez, 104 Ill. 2d 332, 338-39 (1984).
The evidence at trial satisfies the first two approaches.
The State presented eyewitness testimony of the victim who positively identified defendant
as the shooter. Testimony of Brown’s regular drug use was elicited at trial. Brown’s troubled
past was also presented, as his placement in the group home and oversight by DCFS was
established. Therefore, the probative value of Brown’s adjudication was minimal. Furthermore,
even if Brown’s testimony were fully discounted, the fact remains that the State presented the
testimony of the victim, which was sufficient to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,
and exclusion of Brown’s adjudication was not so prejudicial to require a new trial. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the exclusion of Brown’s delinquency adjudication led to his conviction. The
other evidence presented by the State, namely, the eyewitness identification by the victim,
supported defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, even if there were error in excluding the
evidence, that error would be harmless.
B. Motion for Directed Finding and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed finding
of not guilty. Inherent in review of this issue is a review of defendant’s third argument, that the
State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, both arguments will be
addressed together.
A motion for directed finding presents a question of law, and our review is de novo.
People v. Connolly, 322 Ill. App. 3d 905, 917-18 (2001). In considering the denial of such a
motion, we review the evidence presented by the State, in a light most favorable to the State, to
-16-
1-05-1640
determine whether a reasonable mind could fairly conclude defendant was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Connolly, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 918. Similarly, in assessing the sufficiency of the
evidence to sustain a verdict on appeal, we do not retry the defendant; rather, we must view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if “‘any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’" (Emphasis
omitted.) People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318, 326 (2005), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 318-19, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2788-89 (1979).
“This means that [we] must allow all reasonable inferences from the record in the favor of
the prosecution.” People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004). Where the evidence
allows conflicting inferences, resolving such conflicts is within the province of the jury. People v.
Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363, 380 (1992). Likewise, the determination of a defendant’s intent from
circumstantial evidence is a task best suited for the jury. People v. Moore, 358 Ill. App. 3d 683,
688 (2005). The jury need not search out explanations consistent with the defendant’s innocence
when determining whether a reasonable doubt exists. People v. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363, 380
(1992).
Further, where the jury’s determination is dependent upon eyewitness testimony, its
credibility determinations are entitled to great deference and will be upset only if unreasonable.
Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d at 280. In fact, the jury may believe as much, or as little, of any witness’
testimony as it sees fit. People v. Mejia, 247 Ill. App. 3d 55, 62 (1993). Whether eyewitness
testimony is trustworthy is typically within the common knowledge and experience of the average
juror. People v. Clark, 124 Ill. App. 3d 14, 21 (1984). If trustworthy, a single positive
-17-
1-05-1640
eyewitness identification may be sufficient proof of guilt. People v. Rojas, 359 Ill. App. 3d 392,
397 (2005). Thus, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder on what weight
is given to the evidence presented or the credibility of the witnesses. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d at
375.
A defendant is guilty of attempt if, “with intent to commit a specific offense, he does any
act that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of that offense.” 720 ILCS 5/8-4(a)
(West 2004). Therefore, for attempted first degree murder, the State must prove defendant
intended to kill the victim. People v. Slywka, 365 Ill. App. 3d 34, 44 (2006); 720 ILCS 5/9-
1(a)(1) (West 2004). For attempted aggravated vehicular hijacking, the State must prove
defendant intended to take the victim’s motor vehicle by the use of force or threat of imminent
use of force while armed with a firearm. 720 ILCS 5/18-3, 4 (West 2004). Finally, in order to
sustain a charge of aggravated battery with a firearm, the State must prove that the defendant
“knowingly or intentionally” caused injury to another person by means of discharging a firearm.
720 ILCS 5/12-4.2(a) (West 2004). A person acts knowingly if he is consciously aware that his
conduct is practically certain to cause injury (720 ILCS 5/4-5 (West 2004)), while a person acts
recklessly if “he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that the victim would
be harmed (720 ILCS 5/4-6 (West 2004)).
Defendant argues that, even when viewed in a light favorable to the prosecution, the
totality of the evidence leaves reasonable doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator and that intent
had not been proven by the State. Defendant argues that two of the State’s witnesses, Brown and
Ford, were inherently incredible based on their habitual drug use and abuse and their contradictory
-18-
1-05-1640
testimony. Defendant also argues that the victim’s testimony did not credibly identify defendant,
especially when reviewed in conjunction with Cadichon’s testimony. Furthermore, defendant
claims the State failed to overcome the testimony of Gary, the DCFS employee who was on duty
at the group home at the time of the crime.
Defendant also maintains that the victim’s testimony was incredible. Defendant argues
that the victim had a gun pointed at his head and then engaged in a struggle that resulted in his
being shot. Therefore, defendant concludes that the victim’s identification of him in a lineup six
weeks after the crime is not only suspect, but incredible. Defendant argues that the testimony of a
trained police officer, Cadichon, who witnessed the crime in broad daylight from across the
intersection, identifying Prittard as the shooter overcomes the victim’s testimony and establishes a
reasonable doubt.
In addition, defendant notes that Gary’s testimony that the logbook for the group home
indicated that defendant was at the group home at the time of the crime while both Prittard and
Norman were checked out. Defendant notes that the State did not impeach Gary’s testimony or
the logbook records. Defendant argues that this evidence, the contradictory testimony of the
State’s other witnesses, and the inherent lack of reliability of the victim’s identification require a
reversal of his convictions.
Defendant concedes that intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence established at
trial. People v. Johnson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 239, 250 (2002). Defendant also concedes that simply
firing a gun at a person with disregard for human life may sufficiently support a conclusion of
-19-
1-05-1640
intent. People v. Mitchell, 209 Ill. App. 3d 562, 569 (1991). However, defendant argues that the
evidence presented by the State did not establish intent necessary for his convictions and the order
denying the motion for directed finding and the convictions must be reversed.
Defendant claims that the State’s evidence merely indicates that there was a struggle
between the victim and the assailant and not an intent to kill the victim. Defendant asserts that the
evidence demonstrates that the gun was discharged accidentally as a result of the struggle and that
any “pulling back” by the assailant could have been the result of the struggle and not a conscious
step back to fire the gun at the victim. Defendant also claims that there was no proof that
defendant intended to knowingly take the victim’s motor vehicle with respect to his attempted
aggravated vehicular hijacking charge. Defendant argues that the only evidence presented was
that the assailant told the victim to get out of his truck.
We agree with the State that the evidence presented supports the trial court’s denial of
defendant’s motion for directed finding and the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence at trial included the eyewitness identification of the victim, which, as noted above, is
sufficient to uphold a conviction if found trustworthy by the jury. The contradictions identified
between Brown and Ford and the inherent lack of reliability of such habitual drug users is well-
noted. However, the jury was free to disregard such witnesses if it chose to do so, in light of the
victim’s testimony. Further, we will not second-guess the jury’s finding that the victim’s
testimony regarding his face-to-face encounter was more reliable than that of Cadichon. With
respect to Gary and the logbook, the State notes that the testimony at trial indicated that entries
into the logbook were not reliable evidence. In fact, Gray testified to errors in the logbook on the
-20-
1-05-1640
day of the crime.
The evidence at trial indicated that defendant approached the victim’s motor vehicle at the
stoplight with malice aforethought. Defendant produced a firearm and told the victim to get out
of the car. Next, a struggle ensued and defendant stepped back and fired three shots at the victim.
The fact that defendant fired his gun three times at the victim alone supports the jury’s finding of
an intent to kill under Mitchell. Furthermore, defendant’s threatening words and actions support
the rational inference that his conscious objective was to hijack the victim’s motor vehicle and
intentionally harm the victim by discharging his firearm.
C. One Act, One Crime
Defendant argues that his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm must be
vacated based on the one-act, one-crime rule. People v. Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d 335 (2001). Under
the one-act, one-crime rule, a defendant may be convicted for one crime resulting from a single
act. People v. Dresher, 364 Ill. App. 3d 847, 863 (2006). Our review of this issue is de novo.
Dresher, 364 Ill. App. 3d at 863.
The parties do not dispute the fact that the shots fired by defendant constitute one act.
Defendant asserts that the trial court based its sentencing upon the multiple convictions for the
same act and that case law clearly requires that the lesser charge must be vacated. People v. Lee,
213 Ill. 2d 218, 226 (2004). Defendant continues to argue that the matter must be remanded for a
new sentencing hearing because the trial court based its sentencing decision on the multiple
convictions, but he cites no authority for that proposition.
-21-
1-05-1640
The State argues that Crespo is inapplicable to this case and that defendant has simply
misconstrued the statements of the trial court at sentencing. The State maintains that the trial
court did not enter two six-year sentences for the attempted murder and aggravated battery with a
firearm convictions, but a single 12-year sentence. In fact, the trial court stated that the
convictions were merged for sentencing, and the sentencing order reflects that merger. The State
concludes, also without authority, that this court should uphold defendant’s sentence and both
convictions.
Our research has found that People v. Radford, 359 Ill. App. 3d 411 (2005), is most
instructive to this case. In Radford, the defendant was convicted of attempted armed robbery and
attempted aggravated robbery based on the single act of grabbing a man, pretending a glass bottle
was a gun, and demanding money. Radford, 359 Ill. App. 3d at 413. The trial court found that
the lesser conviction should be vacated because our supreme court has “clearly held” that an
indictment must indicate an intention to treat a defendant’s conduct as multiple acts to support
multiple convictions. Radford, 359 Ill. App. 3d at 413, citing Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d at 345.
Therefore, where more than one conviction is based on the same physical act, “‘the less serious
offense must be vacated.’” Radford, 359 Ill. App. 3d at 419, quoting Lee, 213 Ill. 2d at 226-27.
Accordingly, the conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm must be vacated.
However, we agree with the State that remand for resentencing is unnecessary. Under
Radford, upon vacatur of a conviction under the one-act, one-crime rule, remand for re-
sentencing is not necessary absent an indication that the sentence imposed was improper.
Radford, 359 Ill. App. 3d at 419-20. The imposition of a sentence will not be disturbed absent an
-22-
1-05-1640
abuse of discretion. People v. Burrage, 269 Ill. App. 3d 67, 77 (1994). We grant the trial court
great deference, as it is in the best position to determine a proper sentence based on the particular
facts and circumstances of the case and attributes of the defendant such as his credibility,
demeanor, and general moral character. People v. Kennedy, 336 Ill. App. 3d 425, 433 (2002). A
sentence that is within statutory guidelines will be modified only if it is “greatly at variance with
the spirit and purpose of the law or is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offense.”
Kennedy, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 433.
In this case, the trial court made it abundantly clear following defendant’s motion to
reconsider sentence that it had merged the convictions and imposed one sentence for the one act.
Specifically, the trial court stated:
“My ruling is as follows. As to point one, the attempt murder and
aggravated battery, I believe that it was the jury’s decision that they found
convictions for both the attempt murder and aggravated battery. I found that that
was one act, and that is why there was sentences as to attempt murder with the
aggravated battery merging. There was only one sentence as to the 12 year
sentence.” (Emphasis added).
The sentencing guidelines for Class X felonies are from 6 to 30 years’ imprisonment and
for a Class 1 felony from 4 to 15 years’ imprisonment. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(3), (a)(4) (West
2004). The sentences imposed for attempted first degree murder and aggravated vehicular
hijacking are well within the guidelines. While the trial court agreed with defendant that his case
was not the worst the court had ever seen, it specifically found defendant’s actions were repulsive
-23-
1-05-1640
and required more than the statutory minimum. The trial court noted mitigating factors and
determined that defendant “certainly deserved” a sentence of 12 years for his egregious actions.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion and properly imposed a sentence of 12 years’
imprisonment for defendant’s attempted murder conviction.
D. Sentence Enhancement
Defendant asserts that the consecutive sentence imposed was unconstitutional under
Apprendi and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).
Defendant focuses on the language in Blakely that “the relevant ‘statutory maximum’ is not the
maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may
impose without any additional findings.” (Emphasis omitted.) Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303-04, 159
L. Ed. 2d at 413-14, 124 S. Ct. at 2537. In Blakely, the defendant pled guilty to second degree
kidnapping, which carried a maximum sentence of 10 years’ incarceration under the State of
Washington’s sentencing guidelines. However, the defendant pled guilty, and the sentencing
guidelines lowered the maximum for guilty pleas to 53 months. Therefore, the United States
Supreme Court found that 53 months was the maximum sentence and the trial court violated
Apprendi by imposing a 90-month sentence based on a finding of deliberate cruelty. Blakely, 542
U.S. at 302-04, 159 L. Ed. 2d at 413-14, 124 S. Ct. at 2537-38. Defendant argues that the trial
court increased defendant’s penalty in violation of Apprendi and Blakely by finding severe bodily
injury existed without submitting that question of fact to the jury and ordering his sentences be
served consecutively.
The State, citing People v. Wagener, 196 Ill. 2d 269, 286 (2001), and People v. Carney,
-24-
1-05-1640
196 Ill. 2d 518 (2001), argues that our supreme court has repeatedly held that Apprendi concerns
are not implicated by consecutive sentencing. The State notes that defendant was convicted of
two Class X felonies, attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm, which were
merged, and one Class 1 felony, attempted aggravated vehicular hijacking. The State argues that
the Unified Code of Corrections requires the sentencing court to impose consecutive sentences
where one of the crimes committed was a Class X or Class 1 felony and severe bodily injury was
inflicted. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(a)(i) (West 2004). Therefore, the State concludes that the sentences
imposed were within the guidelines and did not invoke Apprendi. The trial court’s order
sentencing defendant to 12 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder and aggravated battery
with a firearm, followed by a consecutive sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment for attempted
aggravated vehicular hijacking, was within the statutory guidelines mandating such a sentence.
We agree with the State. In People v. Lucas, 342 Ill. App. 3d 58, 64 (2003), this court
explained that the Wagener and Carney courts found that the imposition of consecutive sentences
did not implicate Apprendi because such an order only affects the manner in which the sentences
are served, not the length of the sentences. This court has also found that Blakely is “simply an
application of Apprendi” and not an expansion of that case. Weidner v. Cowen, 361 Ill. App. 3d
664, 666 (2005). Blakely involved the imposition of the singular sentence for the defendant’s
crime, not a consecutive sentence. Accordingly, we follow our established precedent, and
defendant’s consecutive sentences are affirmed.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery with a
-25-
1-05-1640
firearm and affirm the decision of the trial court with respect to the remaining issues. The
mittimus shall be corrected to reflect only defendant’s convictions and sentences for attempted
first degree murder and aggravated vehicular hijacking.
Affirmed in part and vacated in part.
CAMPBELL, J., concurs.
JUSTICE NEVILLE, dissents:
I respectfully dissent because I believe that Tabb was denied a fair trial. First, Tabb was
denied a fair trial when the trial court did not order the State to comply with Supreme Court Rule
412 (a) (188 Ill. 2d 412(a)) by disclosing to Tabb the pending and prior juvenile adjudication
records for Norman Brown, the State's eyewitness. Second, Tabb was denied his right to a fair
trial when the trial court granted the State's motion in limine and deprived Tabb of his sixth
amendment right to cross-examine Brown, a juvenile witness, about pending or prior
adjudications.
DISCLOSURE TO THE ACCUSED
The record reveals that on December 3, 2003, Tabb filed a discovery request in which he
specifically requested that the following information be disclosed by the State:
"9. Prior criminal records of State's witnesses to be used
for impeachment.
10. It is further requested that the prosecution disclose
whether there is pending against any witness listed in paragraph (2)
-26-
1-05-1640
supra, any criminal or civil action involving the People of the State
of Illinois or any such action pending during the pendency of the
prosecution of the accused, and if so, full disclosure as to the nature
and outcome of such legal action or actions."
The State answered Tabb's discovery request as follows
"No known record of criminal conviction which can be used for impeachment of intended
State witnesses ***. "
After the trial commenced, the record reveals that the following colloquy took place after
jury selection was concluded:
"MR. CHEVLIN: Judge, we have a motion in limine. I
was just informed by Defense Counsel that they have a certified
copy of a juvenile conviction against one of our witnesses, Norman
Brown. I was not aware of it. I do know he has no adult
convictions. Frankly, I don't think we ran a juvenile background
on him.
We would be objecting to any use of a juvenile conviction
for impeachment purposes. It's not a conviction. It's a finding of
delinquency. It's – One, it's a juvenile record, and, two, it's not a
conviction. It's a finding of delinquency. Its not the same thing."
The colloquy reveals that after jury selection, the assistant State's Attorney (ASA) informed the
court that he was making a motion in limine because defense counsel had a certified copy of a
-27-
1-05-1640
juvenile conviction for Norman Brown, one of the State's witnesses. The ASA further informed the
court that he was unaware of Brown's juvenile conviction. However, the ASA informed the court
that he was sure Brown had no adult convictions. Finally, the State made the following admission:
"I don't think we ran a juvenile background on him."
It is clear from the colloquy that the State did not run a juvenile background check on
Norman Brown, the State's juvenile witness. In addition, it appears from the colloquy that the
State had decided that Tabb was not entitled to the information it had concerning Brown's juvenile
background because the ASA believed that a finding of delinquency was not a "conviction."
Later, during the hearing on the State's motion in limine, Tabb's attorney informed the
court that on November 8, 2004, the day before the trial, the State tendered a copy of Brown's
background from the Chicago police department:
"MR. THEDFORD: *** As the Court knows Chicago
Police Department background as a juvenile will indicate
that a case was charged and referred to court. It's illegal to tender
to indicate what the disposition of the case was.
Based on the Court's order you signed yesterday we called
over to the juvenile facility, fax'd them a copy of that order and
they then informed us orally what the conviction is. It was one
conviction for PCS.1"
1
I assume that the attorney uses the acronym PCS to refer to a conviction for possession
of a controlled substance. 720 ILCS 570/402 (It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess
-28-
1-05-1640
Tabb's attorney makes it clear that the State only provided Tabb with Brown's juvenile
background information from the Chicago police department. Tabb's attorney explained that all
the police department information revealed was that Brown was charged and referred to court. I
note that Tabb’s attorney did not complain about the State’s failure to produce Brown's juvenile
adjudications because he believed it was “illegal to tender to indicate what the disposition of the
case was.” The record reveals that on November 8, 2004, the day before the trial commenced,
the trial court entered an order which provided that "the Public Defender may obtain any and all
records of the Juvenile Dispositions for Norman Brown." I also note that it was not until the trial
court issued its order and the order was faxed to the juvenile court that Tabb's attorney was
informed, orally, that Brown had one conviction for PCS.
Tabb's December 3, 2003, discovery motion clearly requested that the State disclose (1)
the prior criminal records of the State's witnesses; (2) any criminal or civil actions involving the
State's witnesses that were pending; and (3) the outcome of any actions involving the State's
witnesses. While Tabb's motion requested that the State disclose information about its witnesses,
the juvenile background information provided by the State from the Chicago Police Department
did not disclose if Brown had pending cases. The ASA's colloquy with the court makes it clear
that the State did not believe that Tabb was entitled to the information he requested in his motion,
therefore, the State did not run a background check in order to make a good-faith effort to
comply with Supreme Court Rule 412(a)(6).
The trial court's order directing that Norman Brown's juvenile disposition records be
a controlled or counterfeit substance).
-29-
1-05-1640
tendered to Tabb did not result in Tabb obtaining the records he requested in his discovery
motion. Instead, Tabb was told orally that Brown had a PCS conviction. More importantly, it
should be noted that while the State's witnesses' records were requested in Tabb's discovery
motion that was filed on December 3, 2003, the oral information that Brown had a PCS
conviction was not received until November 8, 2004, the day before the trial started. People v.
Redmond, 146 Ill. App. 3d 259, 263 (1986), makes it clear that an adjudication of delinquency,
probationary status, and pending criminal charges are admissible for impeachment, and
impeachment comes within the purview of the Brady rule. Therefore, I believe that the State
violated Supreme Court Rule 412 (a) (6) by failing to provide Tabb with the criminal records for
its witnesses, specifically Norman Brown, that he requested in his discovery motion and that the
State's violation was not corrected when the trial court entered its order because no juvenile
records were tendered to Tabb. Redmond, 146 Ill. App. 3d at 263.
When there is a discovery violation, case law requires a reviewing court to determine
whether the defendant was prejudiced by the discovery violation. See People v. Greer, 79 Ill. 2d
103, 120 (1980); People v. Stokes, 121 Ill. App. 3d 72, 75 (1984). Illinois follows Rule 609 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence. See People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d 510, 516-19 (1971). Rule
609(d) provides that evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not admissible, but permits the
judge in a criminal case to admit evidence of a juvenile adjudication of any witness, other than the
accused, if the adjudication involves the kind of offense that would be admissible as a prior
conviction to attack the credibility of an adult and if the court is satisfied that the evidence is
necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence. Fed. R. Evid. 609(d).
-30-
1-05-1640
Brown is not the accused but a witness in this case so, according to Rule 609(d), his prior
juvenile adjudications would be admissible evidence if Tabb met the two conditions in Rule
609(d). Fed. R. Evid. 609(d). Tabb meets the first condition in Rule 609 because it is axiomatic
that a conviction for possession of a controlled substance could be used to attack the credibility of
an adult; therefore, the evidence could be used to impeach Brown. Tabb also meets the second
condition in Rule 609 because evidence concerning the juvenile delinquency adjudications of a
witness is admissible for the purpose of showing motive or bias and, since Brown was an
eyewitness and a suspect in the same crime, a fair trial necessitated that Brown be cross-examined
with his juvenile adjudications. See People v. Sharrod, 271 Ill. App. 3d 684, 689 (1995)
(evidence that a witness first accused the defendant at the time the witness was on juvenile
probations can be explored by the defense on cross-examination to explore the bias of the witness;
and the case was reversed because the State failed to disclose that its witness was on juvenile
supervision). Brown had a motive to testify falsely because a police officer who witnessed the
crime testified at the trial that Brown was one of the offenders. Therefore, Brown's credibility
was at issue because he was also a suspect, and Tabb's ability to cross-examine Brown and to
impeach him with his prior adjudications is evidence that was required for a fair determination of
the issues. See People v. Redmond, 146 Ill. App. 3d 259, 264 (1986) (case reversed where State
failed to disclose the criminal and juvenile records of a witness who was accused of being the
perpetrator of the offense); Stokes, 121 Ill. App. 3d 72, 75-76 (1984) (case reversed where the
State failed to provide defendant with witness' burglary conviction because the case hinged on
credibility).
-31-
1-05-1640
I acknowledge that the State's failure to comply with Tabb's discovery requirements does
not automatically necessitate a new trial. Harris, 123 Ill. 2d at 151. I also acknowledge that a
new trial should only be granted if Tabb was prejudiced by the discovery violation and the trial
court failed to eliminate the prejudice. Harris, 123 Ill. 2d at 151-52; People v. Cisewski, 118 Ill.
2d 163, 172 (1987). Among the factors to be considered in determining whether a new trial is
warranted are: (1) the strength of the undisclosed evidence; (2) the likelihood that prior notice
could have helped the defense discredit the evidence; and (3) the willfulness of the State in failing
to disclose. Harris, 123 Ill. 2d at 152.
I believe the State's undisclosed evidence, Brown’s juvenile adjudication records, was
important evidence that would have assisted Tabb in his defense. Brown's juvenile adjudication
records were important because his prior adjudication would have allowed Tabb to impeach
Brown in front of the jury and provide an explanation for his motive to lie. Cross-examination
reveals biases, prejudices and ulterior motives of a witness, and one way to discredit a witness is
to introduce evidence of a prior conviction. People v. Blue, 205 Ill. 2d 1, 12-13 (2001). Brown's
records regarding "pending criminal matters," which the State did not look for, may have revealed
that he was on probation or had other pending charges which would prompt him to cooperate
with the State by lying to prevent the State from charging him with the offenses Tabb was
charged with: attempted first degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm and aggravated
vehicular hijacking. The State's failure to provide Tabb with Brown's juvenile adjudication
records was not cured by the trial court issuing an order because it produced no records and Tabb
was prejudiced because the oral report was provided on the eve of his trial and it affected his
-32-
1-05-1640
ability (1) to prepare his defense and make tactical decisions with the aid of the information, and
(2) to impeach Brown and establish his biases, prejudices or ulterior motives in testifying for the
State.
IMPEACHMENT BY JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS
The second question we must address is whether the trial court erred when it granted the
State's motion in limine and excluded evidence concerning Brown's prior juvenile adjudication.
When ruling on the State's motion, the court made the following statement:
"THE COURT: Based on the cases you have cited in the
highlighted area that these prior bad acts, weighing the probative nature
versus the prejudicial nature, that is it is a Possession of Controlled
Substance charge, looking - - weighing it I don't see where its
probativeness outweighs the prejudicial effect. I will deny your request."
The court held that the prejudicial nature of Brown's adjudication for possession of a controlled
substance outweighed its probative value. The trial court erred when it ignored Rule 6092 and
2
"(a) General rule. - For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, (1) evidence
that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to
Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the
law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of
such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this
evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.
***
-33-
1-05-1640
applied Rule 403.3 The trial court overlooked the fact that Rule 609(d) governs the admission of
juvenile adjudications and permits juvenile adjudications to be admitted (1) if the offense would
be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult, and (2) if the court is satisfied that the admission
of the evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issues. Fed. R. Evid. 609(d). First, as
previously indicated, a conviction for possession of a controlled substance could be used to attack
the credibility of an adult. Second, instead of using the prejudicial-effect-versus- probative-value
test in Rule 403 when admitting juvenile adjudications, Rule 609 uses a fair- determination-of-the-
issues test. Fed. R. Evid. 609(d). I submit that Brown was an eyewitness and a suspect in the
crime; therefore, his juvenile adjudication records were necessary for his cross-examination and
for a fair determination of the issues in Tabb's case. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it
granted the State's motion in limine and excluded evidence concerning Brown’s juvenile
adjudications because Rule 609 does not use a prejudicial-effect-versus-probative-value test to
determine whether the juvenile adjudications of a witness other than the accused are admissible in
(d) Juvenile adjudications. *** The court may, however, in a criminal case allow evidence
of a juvenile adjudication of a witness other than the accused if conviction of the offense would be
admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and the court is satisfied that the admission in
evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence." Fed. Rs. Evid.
609(a), (d).
3
Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue
delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
-34-
1-05-1640
evidence. Compare Fed. R. Evid. 609(d) with Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Even if the trial court used the prejudicial-effect-versus-probative-value test in Rule 403, it
should have denied the State's motion. Rule 609 provides that Rule 403 applies to witnesses
other than the accused. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a). While Rule 403 applies to witness evidence other
than juvenile adjudications (Fed. R. Evid. 609(d)), it provides that evidence may be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues
or misleads the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The comment for Rule 403 makes it clear that
"[v]irtually all evidence is prejudicial or it isn't material." 1 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's
Evidence par. 403[03], at 403-33 (1975) (The meaning of "prejudice"). The admission of
Brown's juvenile adjudication records would effect his credibility but would not prejudice him for
three reasons: (1) Brown was not a co-defendant in Tabb's case so the admission of his prior
adjudication records would not result in his conviction; (2) Tabb was charged with three criminal
offenses so Brown's prior juvenile adjudications would not confuse the issues in Tabb's criminal
case; and (3) Brown was not a codefendant so his prior adjudication records would not mislead
the jury attempting to determine Tabb's guilt or innocence. Accordingly, since Brown was a
witness and would not have been prejudiced by the admission of his juvenile adjudications at
Tabb’s trial, the trial court erred when it granted the State’s motion in limine and excluded
Brown's juvenile adjudications because Brown's prior adjudication records would not prevent the
jury from deciding Tabb's case on its factual merits.
The majority found that the exclusion of Brown's prior adjudication was a harmless error
for two reasons: (1) because the error did not contribute to Tabb's conviction; and (2) because the
-35-
1-05-1640
other evidence (Gomez's, the victim's, testimony) overwhelmingly supported Tabb's conviction. I
disagree with the majority's conclusions. First, the majority is in error when it says that Brown's
testimony did not contribute to Tabb's conviction because Brown's testimony corroborated
Gomez's testimony. It is my considered opinion that Gomez's testimony was of limited value
without Brown's testimony because Gomez testified (1) that he did not see the offender approach
his window, and (2) that the encounter with the offender lasted between 5 and 10 seconds. Given
the fact that Gomez had a 5- to 10- second encounter with the offender, without Brown's
corroboration, Gomez's identification testimony would be questioned by the jury. Second, if
Brown's corroborating testimony is impeached and if we are left with Gomez's testimony, we do
not have overwhelming evidence of Tabb's guilt because Gomez's identification of Tabb as the
shooter was contradicted by Officer Cadichon's identification of Prittard as the shooter and
Brown as a second offender. It should be noted (1) that Brown testified that he and Prittard were
at the crime scene when Tabb shot Gomez; and (2) that by placing himself and Prittard at the
crime scene, Brown's testimony corroborates Officer Cadichon's testimony, in part, because the
officer testified that Prittard was the shooter and that Brown was the man in the getaway car.
Therefore, if Tabb had been permitted to cross-examine and impeach Brown with any pending
cases and with his prior adjudication, I do not think the jury would have convicted Tabb based on
Gomez's identification because it was based on a 5- to 10- second encounter with the offender.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I note that the sixth amendment provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right *** to be confronted with the witnesses against him ***.” U.S.
-36-
1-05-1640
Const., amend. VI; accord Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §8 (“In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
have the right *** to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her”). "Confrontation
forces the prosecution's witnesses to submit to cross-examination (California v. Green, 399 U.S.
149, 158, 26 L. Ed. 2d 489, 497, 90 S. Ct. 1930, 1935 (1970)), 'beyond any doubt the greatest
legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth' (5 J. Wigmore, Evidence §1367, at 32
(Chadbourn rev. ed. 1974))." Accordingly, a criminal defendant's constitutional right to
confrontation includes the right to cross-examine. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 418, 13 L.
Ed. 2d 934, 937, 85 S. Ct. 1074, 1076 (1965). Blue, 205 Ill. 2d 1 at 12.
I note that " ' [c]ross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a
witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.' " Blue, 205 Ill. 2d 1 at 12 , quoting Davis v.
Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347, 353, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 1110 (1974). A
cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, and discredit witnesses by introducing
evidence of prior criminal conviction of that witness to reveal possible biases, prejudices, or
ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate directly to issues in the case. Blue, 205 Ill. 2d at
12-13; Gonzalez, 104 Ill. 2d at 337 (the right to cross-examine a witness as to his biases,
prejudices or ulterior motives is protected by the federal and state constitutions). In this case, (1)
by failing to order the State to produce Brown's juvenile adjudications prior to trial, and (2) by
erroneously granting the State's motion in limine and denying Tabb the opportunity to cross-
examine Brown with his prior juvenile adjudications, Tabb was not permitted to impeach Brown's
testimony by establishing his biases, prejudices and ulterior motives for testifying falsely.
Redmond, 146 Ill. App. 3d at 264; Stokes, 121 Ill. App. 3d at 75-76. Accordingly, Tabb was
-37-
1-05-1640
denied a fair trial.
-38-