|
Docket No. 80149--Agenda 3--September 1997.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. JUAN CORTES,
Appellant. Opinion filed January 23, 1998.
JUSTICE HARRISON delivered the opinion of the
court:
Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant,
Juan
Cortes, was convicted of four counts of first degree murder (Ill.
Rev. Stat. 1991,
ch. 38, par. 9--1) and two counts of armed robbery (Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1991, ch. 38,
par. 18--2). Defendant elected to have the trial court determine
his sentence, and
the court found that he was eligible for the death penalty because
he was
convicted of murdering two or more individuals and because the
victims were
killed in the course of another felony. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991,
ch. 38, par. 9--1(b)(3),
(b)(6). The court further determined that there were no mitigating
factors sufficient
to preclude imposition of a sentence of death. See Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par.
9--1(h). Accordingly, the court sentenced defendant to death.
Defendant's
execution has been stayed pending direct review of the case by
this court. Ill.
Const. 1970, art. VI, sec. 4(b); 134 Ill. 2d R. 603, 609(a).
On February 4, 1991, the bodies of the Gama brothers, Ayax,
34, and Rafael, 28, were discovered inside their apartment in
Chicago. Each had been shot twice in the head at close range.
Numerous items were later believed to be missing from the brothers'
apartment, including a television set, jewelry, and a compact
disc player. Defendant was arrested on February 26, 1991, and
subsequently indicted on murder and armed robbery charges.
During the 3½ years between defendant's arrest and conviction,
the question of his fitness to stand trial arose. On August 19,
1992, defense counsel Michael King told the trial court that he
had "found out that [defendant] was in the Cermak Hospital
for certain ailments and also in the psychiatric ward," and
had accordingly subpoenaed defendant's hospital records. On April
29, 1993, King requested that defendant be evaluated for fitness
because King questioned defendant's ability to cooperate with
counsel.
Thereafter, defendant was examined for fitness on four occasions,
by three doctors, all of whom were employed by the Psychiatric
Institute of the Cook County circuit court's Forensic Clinical
Services Department. In May 1993, Dr. Paul Fauteck found defendant
unfit for trial due to depression effecting his ability to
adequately
cooperate with defense counsel. Later that same month, Dr. Kishore
Thampy found defendant fit to stand trial. Finally, in July
1993,
Dr. Stafford Henry found defendant "fit to stand trial with
medication." Due to the "conflict" between these
opinions defense counsel requested a fitness hearing, which the
trial court ordered. However, on August 19, 1993, prior to defendant's
next court appearance, Dr. Fauteck reexamined defendant and found
him "fit to stand trial with medication." Dr. Fauteck's
report further noted that defendant's depression appeared to be
in remission and that defendant "states he no longer needs
to take the entire 300 mg. of Sinequan which is prescribed for
him." Based on Dr. Fauteck's revised opinion, defense counsel
King withdrew his request for a fitness hearing.
On January 13, 1994, the trial court denied defendant's motion
to suppress statements made to police following his arrest which
alleged, inter alia, defendant's inability to understand the English
language. On January 25, 1994, new counsel, Richard Mottweiler,
entered his appearance on defendant's behalf. Mottweiler represented
defendant throughout the trial, sentencing and through a portion
of the post-trial phase, at which time Michael King reentered
the case.
On October 24, 1994, defendant's jury trial commenced. For
the State, Chicago Police Officer Michael Cusak testified that
during
the late evening of February 4, 1991, he and his partner discovered
the bodies of Ayax and Rafael Gama inside their apartment. The
officers had entered the building on an unrelated case and found
the Gamas' front door ajar. The door area was damaged, there
were
fresh wood chips and tool marks on the door shim, and the apartment
was in disarray. One of the deceased lay face down on the floor
in a pool of blood and the other was on a couch. The apartment
was very warm and most of the blood was drying.
Chicago Police Detective Bill Johnston testified that he examined
the crime scene and noticed from dust outlines that there were
vacant areas on an entertainment center in the living room. A
television remote control was discovered but no television was
found. Johnston believed that the damage to the front door was
from a screwdriver but that entry to the apartment had been gained
by the application of brute force, as by shouldering the door.
Chicago Police Officer Joe Moran, a forensic investigator, processed
the Gamas' apartment for evidence on February 4, 1991. Moran photographed
the scene and recovered a fired bullet from the floor. He recovered
ridged fingerprint impressions from the front door and from various
items, including a telephone, beer bottle, drinking glass and
candy jar. These items were collected for further fingerprint
analysis at the crime laboratory. Chicago Police Officer Stanley
Mocadlo, a latent print examiner, testified that the candy jar
found at the scene contained the prints of defendant's right thumb,
index and middle fingers. Mocadlo agreed that, depending on the
environment, fingerprints can remain on a surface indefinitely.
The parties stipulated that if Officer Richard Chenow, a firearm
examiner for the Chicago police department, were to testify he
would state that he examined the fired bullet recovered from the
Gamas' apartment, as well as three fired bullets and a bullet
fragment recovered from the victims' bodies. In Chenow's opinion,
all of the bullets were ".38 Specials" and shared the
same class characteristics. Because the bullets were unsuitable
for further comparison of individual characteristics, Chenow could
not determine whether they were all fired from the same gun. The
parties also stipulated to the testimony of forensic pathologist
Dr. Robert Kirschner. Dr. Kirschner's examination of Ayax Gama
revealed the cause of death to be two close-range gunshot wounds,
one to the back of the head and one to the back of the neck. The
cause of Rafael Gama's death was also two gunshot wounds, one
close-range wound to the head and one to the left side of the
face.
Martin Diaz testified that he was a friend of Ayax and Rafael
Gama, and knew that both of them were homosexuals. The brothers
normally wore gold bracelets, rings and chains. Diaz had visited
their apartment on several occasions and knew that the brothers
stored jewelry and change in a glass jar located on an entertainment
center or bookshelf. That unit also housed their 19-inch television
set and Ayax's portable compact disc player. At trial, Diaz identified
the glass jar and three compact discs belonging to the brothers
and stated that the compact disc player and photograph of a television
"looked like" the items previously owned by the Gamas.
Diaz testified that when he visited the Gamas' apartment between
11 a.m. and noon on February 2, 1991, the jar and television set
were in their customary positions on the entertainment center.
Diaz stated that the last time he saw either of the brothers
was when he took Rafael Gama home at about 5 or 6 p.m. on the
evening of February 2. He noted no damage to the Gama's front
door that day. On the morning of February 3, Diaz unsuccessfully
attempted to get the brothers to answer their door and phone.
He later learned that they had been killed. The parties stipulated
that if Eddie Munoz were to testify, he would state that at approximately
7 p.m. on February 2, 1991, he spoke with the Gama brothers and
invited them to his apartment, but was informed that they would
be staying at home that evening.
Alex Torres initially testified that he had been convicted of
burglary in 1993. By February 1991, Torres had known defendant
for 9 or 10 months and knew him by various names, including "Ivan
Torres," "Ivan Flores" and the nickname "Boricua"
(hereinafter Boriqua).[fn1] Torres knew defendant to speak both
Spanish and English.
On February 2, 1991, at approximately 9 p.m., defendant stopped
by Torres' apartment. Defendant was "drugged up" and
"hyper." He had a bag of "weed" and a bag
of heroin with him which he, Torres and Torres' cousin proceeded
to consume. Defendant stated that he was going to "stick
up" the "Mexican fagots [sic]." Torres, who had
met these men through defendant several weeks earlier and knew
where their apartment was located, refused defendant's invitation
to go along. Defendant left Torres' apartment between 9:30 and
9:45 p.m. and, shortly thereafter, Torres' girlfriend, Arlyn Torres,
arrived with her daughter. Torres and Arlyn spent the remainder
of the evening at home watching movies.
The following morning defendant returned to Torres' apartment,
"more hyper" and "drugged up" and wearing
gold jewelry which he was not wearing the night before. Defendant
displayed various gold chains, rings, a watch, a compact disc
player and some "CD cassettes." One of the chains bore
a name plate on it similar to that worn by one of the two homosexual
men on the date Torres had met them. Defendant also flashed some
money, claiming that it totaled $700. Defendant said that he "got
paid" and bragged that he "did the Mexican fagots [sic]
in" after taunting them about their sexuality. According
to Torres, defendant demonstrated how he shot the two men and,
at one point, pulled up his shirt, revealing a "two-shot
.38 Derringer" tucked into his pants.
Defendant offered to sell the compact disc player to Torres,
who purchased it for $30. Defendant then asked if Torres knew
anyone who would be interested in buying a television. Torres
called his sister, Lizette Torres, who told him to bring it over
and that she would buy the television if it worked. An acquaintance,
Jason Rivera, arrived and the three men drove in Rivera's car
to the rear of the Gamas' apartment building. There, defendant
retrieved a television from behind a dumpster and placed it in
the trunk. The three proceeded to Torres' sister's apartment building
and took the television to the first floor residence of a relative,
Anna Cruz. Cruz bought the television from defendant for $150.
The three men then left, picked up Arlyn and her child at Torres'
apartment and drove them home. On the way to Arlyn's residence,
defendant continued to brag about "killing the fagots [sic]."
The three men then drove to defendant's house where he retrieved
another gun, a ".38 Special" revolver. Defendant then
directed Rivera to an apartment where defendant ran inside and,
upon returning, stated that he had sold the ".38 Special"
for $125. Later, defendant briefly left Rivera's car and got into
another vehicle, after which defendant said he had sold the other
gun to his cousin. Defendant then bought Rivera and Torres food
and narcotics. Torres next saw defendant a day or two later. Defendant
invited Torres to accompany him and his girlfriend Nancy to "Liberty's
Gold" pawn shop, where defendant sold the chains and rings
he was wearing.
On February 20, Torres was arrested on a burglary charge. Torres
initiated a conversation with police, telling them what he had
heard defendant say about the murders. Because he did not want
to get into trouble, Torres omitted mention of the fact that he
had accompanied defendant to retrieve the television. Torres admitted
that his motive in telling the police about the murders was "to
try to get out of trouble" and that, during the 12 hours
that he was held in custody at the station, the police offered
to "try to help him out" on his burglary case. Several
days later, Torres was able to "bond out" on the burglary
charge, but was picked up by police on the night of February 25
and asked to provide more information. On the morning of February
26, Torres gave a written statement to an assistant State's Attorney.
Torres admitted at trial that he also failed to mention the television's
retrieval in this written statement. Torres later testified before
the grand jury.
At trial, Torres was confronted with various inconsistencies
between his grand jury testimony, his written and oral statements
and his trial testimony, including: (1) whether he believed that
defendant was going to kill or simply rob the victims; (2) what
property defendant possessed on the morning of February 3; (3)
whether he recognized the property as belonging to the Gama brothers;
(4) whether it was Lizette Torres or Anna Cruz who had bought
the television; and (5) what Jason Rivera's level of involvement
was in the crimes. As to the latter two matters, Torres explained
that he sought to protect Cruz from a stolen property charge and
that he did not want to involve Rivera and Lizette Torres. Torres
further admitted that the burglary charge he had been arrested
for on February 20, 1991, was later dropped, but denied that there
was any deal made in exchange for his trial testimony.
Arlyn Torres testified that she was Alex Torres' girlfriend
in February 1991. On February 2, at approximately 10 p.m., Arlyn
and her young daughter arrived at Torres' apartment and remained
there with him the rest of the night. The next morning, Boriqua,
the defendant, came to Torres' home. Defendant was "loud"
and "hyper" and wore several gold rings and chains.
Defendant began telling Torres, in English, about how he had shot
the "Mexican faggots" in the head. Defendant laughed
as he described how he had made the men "beg for their lives
like bitches" before killing them. Arlyn testified that Torres
then bought a compact disc player and "three CDs" from
defendant and identified those items in court. Torres' friend
Jason Rivera arrived and the three men left the apartment for
approximately one-half hour. Arlyn was then driven home in Rivera's
car. On the way, defendant continued to brag about the killings,
saying he "did the Mexicans, the faggots, and he ain't scared
of anybody," that he would "take down" anyone who
"messed" with him, and that he did not care about anything.
From the conversation, Arlyn also learned about a television having
been stolen. Arlyn admitted that she did not take defendant's
statements about the killings seriously and denied making certain
prior inconsistent statements.
Lizette Torres testified that she knew defendant by the name
Boriqua and had met him through her brother, Alex Torres. In February
1991, defendant spoke both English and Spanish, and Lizette had
spoken to him in both these languages. When her brother called
to ask if she knew anyone who would want to buy a television,
she told him Anna Cruz, who lived in her building, was interested.
After Torres, Rivera and defendant arrived with the television,
a dirty 19-inch color model, and revealed it to be in working
condition, Cruz paid defendant $150 for it. Anna Cruz testified
that on February 3, 1991, she paid a man named Boriqua $150 for
a television that he brought to her home. Cruz was unable to identify
defendant as Boriqua at trial, but did identify a photograph of
the television, which the police had confiscated in late February
1991.
Ralph Santiago testified that he was the president of Liberty
Gold and Coin and was working at that store in February 1991.
At trial, Santiago identified four receipts relating to business
transactions conducted in his store. The first receipt, dated
January 30, 1991, bore the name "Ivan Torres," of 1917
North Pulaski, and reflected the sale of a bracelet and chain
to the shop. The second receipt, dated February 2, 1991, listed
the sale of seven gold rings, a charm and two bracelets. The seller
was again "Ivan Torres," of the same address. The third
receipt, dated February 5, 1991, also bore the name "Ivan
Torres," but did not describe the items sold. The fourth
receipt, also dated February 5, described a quantity of 14-carat
gold sold by an "Ivan Flores." Although Santiago had
personally made the first two of these purchases, he could not
identify the seller.
Chicago Police Detective Ernest Halvorsen testified regarding
his investigation of these murders. On February 24, 1991, Halvorsen
received information that a person named "Ivan Flores,"
also known as "Juan Cortez," may have been involved
in the crime. Halvorsen checked with the crime lab the following
day and discovered that defendant's fingerprints had been recovered
from a jar found in the Gamas' apartment. Halvorsen arrested defendant
shortly after midnight on February 26 and transported him to the
police station.
After being informed that his fingerprints were found at the
scene and that Alex, Arlyn and Lizette Torres had all given statements
implicating him in the crime, defendant was advised of his Miranda
rights in English and stated that he understood each one. Defendant
then stated: "That fucken [sic] Alex gave me up. Well, you
got me, but if I'm going to go down for these murders, I'm going
to tell you about something that Alex did." Defendant gave
Halvorsen information implicating Torres in an unrelated case
and then gave a statement relating to the murder of the Gama brothers.
Defendant's statement related that he lived at 1917 North Pulaski
in Chicago. He had known the Gama brothers, whom he referred to
as "faggots," for about one year and had "partied"
with them before. One of the Gama brothers used to pay defendant
for anal intercourse. On Saturday, February 2, 1991, defendant
told Torres and another man that he was going to "go by the
Mexicans, get high with them and do them up." Armed with
a ".38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver," defendant
arrived at the Gamas' apartment at about 10 p.m. and for the next
few hours the three men drank beer and smoked marijuana and PCP.
The brothers began to caress defendant, rubbing his crotch and
buttocks. Defendant told the men several times to "leave
me alone or I will kill you," and then drew his gun. When
Rafael began to laugh at him, defendant shot and killed Rafael.
"A[ya]x began crying and grabbed for the gun," the two
struggled and defendant shot Ayax twice in the back of the head.
Defendant's statement further revealed that, after killing the
brothers, defendant removed rings, chains and money from Ayax's
body. He left the building and fell asleep in his car. After defendant
awoke the following morning at approximately 9 a.m., he went to
Torres' apartment and told him that he had killed the two Gamas.
Defendant suggested that Torres return with him to the Gamas'
apartment in order to take the television, compact disc player,
money and anything else of value. Torres called a man named Jason
and the three went to the apartment and retrieved the television
set and compact disc player. The men then went to Lizette Torres'
home, where they sold the television to Anna Cruz for $150. Torres
kept the compact disc player. Defendant stated that he disposed
of the jewelry he had taken from the Gama brothers at "Liberty
Brothers Pawnshop." Halvorsen testified that his entire conversation
with defendant, which lasted 20 to 30 minutes, was in English.
At no time did defendant claim not to understand what was said
or request an explanation. After taking defendant's statement,
Halvorsen contacted the State's Attorney's office.
Assistant Cook County State's Attorney William Carroll testified
that on February 20, 1991, he met with defendant at the police
station and advised him of his Miranda rights in English. After
stating that he understood each right that was read to him, defendant
agreed to speak with Carroll and then gave a narrative account
in English of the offenses. After Carroll explained the differences
between a court-reported and a handwritten statement to defendant,
he elected the latter and his oral admissions to Carroll were
reduced to writing. Carroll testified that he asked defendant
to read one paragraph of the completed statement aloud, then watched
as defendant read each page to himself, made his desired corrections
and signed each page. Defendant's written statement, which was
published to the jury, was essentially consistent with the statement
defendant had previously given to Halvorsen, except that defendant
made no mention of pawning the victims' jewelry. Defendant admitted
in his statement that he understood written and spoken English.
In response to the State's evidence that he had made a statement
in English, defendant called four witnesses who testified to his
inability to speak or understand the English language. Donald
Navarro testified that he lived next door to defendant and his
girlfriend Nancy Almodovar in 1989 and 1990 and spoke with defendant
perhaps three times per week, but only in Spanish. Navarro observed
defendant speaking with other people, but never in English. Navarro
admitted that he and his wife were "grandparents to Nancy's
brother" and that his two god-children lived at defendant's
address at the relevant time. The parties later stipulated that
Navarro had testified before the grand jury that he usually encountered
defendant only once a week.
Edwin Rodriquez testified that he worked with defendant in 1988
in a shipping department for eight hours a day, five days per
week. During that time, Rodriquez, who himself spoke little English,
never observed defendant speaking any language other than Spanish.
Rodriquez admitted that he had testified before the grand jury
in English, that he was Donald Navarro's son-in-law, and that
he lived next door to the Almodovar family and had known them
since 1988.
Nancy Almodovar, who had recently married defendant, testified
that she met him in 1989 and that they lived together from 1990
until he was jailed in 1991. Defendant "barely" spoke
English and the two never held an entire conversation in that
language. Almodovar never saw defendant converse with others in
English, except for "[s]mall things" and "basic
stuff." Defendant would ask her to interpret if he did not
understand something said to him in English. Almodovar admitted
that she had previously testified that she had never observed
defendant speak English. She did not recall if she had gone to
a pawnshop with defendant in February 1991 to pawn gold. Almodovar
stated that defendant did use the name "Ivan Flores,"
but not the name "Ivan Torres."
Ann Collins, an attorney with the Cook County public defender's
office, testified that she had represented defendant in Judge
Bolan's courtroom from late 1991 until January 1993. During that
time, Collins had eight or nine conversations with defendant,
all of which were conducted with the assistance of an interpreter.
Collins never spoke to defendant in English. On cross-examination,
Collins stated that she "did not represent [defendant] on
the elected case," but rather on some "other matter."
She did not recall whether defendant had made a statement in English
in that other case, despite being shown a copy of a police report
and her discovery motion.
In rebuttal, the State presented the testimony of Melissa Foss
and Pradeep Roy-Singh. Foss testified that she was an adult probation
officer for Cook County and that she had interviewed defendant
in February 1990 in a Skokie courtroom where "[h]e had just
been sentenced." Foss did not specifically recall their conversation,
but stated that she did not speak Spanish and did not accept people
as probationers who do not speak English. After speaking with
defendant, Foss accepted him as an assigned probationer. Defendant's
motion for a mistrial, based upon improper "other crimes"
evidence revealed by Foss' testimony, was denied.
Roy-Singh, an assistant State's Attorney, testified that he
had an hour-long conversation in English with defendant on February
26, 1991, at the Area 5 police station. Roy-Singh stated that
he had no difficulty understanding defendant's English, nor did
defendant appear to have any difficulty understanding him. Roy-
Singh also reviewed an eight-page document, written in English,
with defendant and the only word in the document that defendant
indicated he did not understand was the word "verbatim."
At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury received instructions
from the trial court and heard closing arguments. As noted at
the outset of this opinion, the jury returned a verdict of guilty
of first degree murder and armed robbery and the trial court sentenced
defendant to death. Further description of defendant's trial,
sentencing and post-sentencing proceedings is contained within
the discussion of issues raised by defendant below. Defendant
first contends that he was denied the effective assistance of
counsel and due process of law by his counsel's failure to demand
a fitness hearing prior to his trial and sentencing based upon
his ingestion of the psychotropic drug Sinequan before and during
the time of those proceedings. Defendant additionally claims that
the nunc pro tunc, or retrospective, fitness hearing conducted
approximately one year after he was tried and sentenced was not
a constitutionally adequate substitute for a "timely"
hearing. The State maintains that the fitness hearing defendant
received satisfied due process and the statutory requisites of
section 104--21(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code)
(725 ILCS 5/104--21(a) (West 1994)), and thus defense counsel
was not ineffective where defendant suffered no prejudice from
the belated hearing. We agree with the State.
Defendant's jury trial was conducted between October 24 and
November 4, 1994, and his capital sentencing hearing was held
on November 9 and 10, 1994. On May 23, 1995, defense counsel King
presented a post-trial motion which cited this court's decision
in People v. Brandon, 162 Ill. 2d 450 (1994), and the appellate
court's decision in People v. Guttierez, 271 Ill. App. 3d 301
(1995). The motion also noted the August 1993 reports of Dr. Fautek
and Dr. Henry declaring defendant fit to stand trial with medication.
Because it was unclear whether defendant was receiving psychotropic
medication at the time of his trial and sentencing, the court
decided to conduct a fitness hearing to determine whether defendant
had been fit during those proceedings and at his pretrial motion
to suppress held in 1993. The trial court ordered a behavioral
clinical examination of defendant and instructed defense counsel
to determine the particulars of defendant's use of medication.
On September 28, 1995, the court announced it had received the
results of the behavioral clinical examination. The report, authored
two days earlier by Dr. Thampy, stated that defendant: (1) was
not suffering from a serious psychiatric disorder; (2) was not
presently receiving any medication; and (3) understood the nature
of the proceedings against him and should be able to cooperate
with counsel. The report further concluded that defendant was
fit for trial during the period from October 1993 to January 1994
and during the month of November 1994. The report did not express
an opinion as to whether defendant was fit in October 1994, and
the trial court continued the matter for Dr. Thampy's appearance.
On October 20, 1995, a fitness hearing was conducted concerning
defendant's fitness for trial in the instant case as well as in
his unrelated pending murder case. At the outset, defense counsel
King objected to the retrospective nature of the hearing and argued
that a new trial was required due to the denial of a timely fitness
hearing. The trial court disagreed. Dr. Kishore Thampy, a staff
psychiatrist for Forensic Clinical Services for the circuit court
of Cook County, testified that he examined defendant for fitness
on three occasions, in May 1993 and in September and October 1995.
Thampy also reviewed defendant's prior psychological and psychiatric
evaluations, including the reports of Dr. Fautek and Dr. Henry,
and defendant's health records, social history, transcripts from
the sentencing hearing and police reports of the incidents.
Thampy testified that defendant's health records revealed that
in October and November 1994, when the trial and sentencing proceedings
occurred, defendant was receiving 100 milligrams of the psychotropic
drug Doxepin, also known as Sinequan, "at bedtime."
While this medication is an antidepressant typically prescribed
for the treatment of anxiety, sleep disorders and mild depression,
it was Thampy's understanding that defendant "was prescribed
the medication primarily to help him sleep and not specifically
for depression." Thampy stated that a 100-milligram dosage
is considered in the "low to moderate" range, and could
remain in the body in varying degrees of therapeutic effectiveness
for several hours to several days. In a person of defendant's
height and weight, the prescribed dosage would have no adverse
effect except for mild persisting drowsiness.
Thampy further testified that, in his opinion, the Sinequan
prescribed for defendant "would not significantly [a]ffect
his ability to relate to others except by improving his interpersonal
communication." The drug would have no significant adverse
impact upon defendant's ability to understand the nature of the
proceedings against him or the role of the parties. Based upon
his interviews with defendant and his review of defendant's testimony
at the capital sentencing hearing, Thampy believed that defendant
was capable of communicating with others, and of understanding
the nature of the proceedings against him and the roles of the
various parties in court. Thampy opined that, to a reasonable
degree of medical certainty, defendant was fit to stand trial
in October and November 1994, with or without the Sinequan medication,
and was similarly fit at the present time. Nor would any of the
other medications that defendant was then ingesting, including
antibiotics and aspirin, have affected his fitness for trial or
sentencing.
On cross-examination, Thampy acknowledged that he did not speak
with defendant's trial attorney, Mottweiler, or with King regarding
defendant's ability to cooperate with counsel. Thampy did not
believe this step was necessary because his assessment of defendant's
ability to cooperate was based on a general ability to cooperate
with others, and a "selective type of lack of cooperation"
with a particular attorney would not affect that determination.
Thampy also acknowledged that Dr. Bachula, a treating psychiatrist
at the jail, had noted that he "could be prescribing the
Sinequan for *** `possible depression.' "
On redirect, Thampy noted that although Dr. Fautek had concluded
in May 1993 that defendant was too depressed to cooperate with
counsel, Fautek had concluded in August 1993 that defendant
was
fit with medication and was able to cooperate with counsel and "follow appropriate courtroom procedures." Thampy, while
agreeing with Dr. Henry's July 1993 report that defendant had
a "very sophisticated" understanding of the workings
of the criminal justice system and understood the nature of the
charges against him, disagreed with Henry's finding that defendant
"demonstrated a willingness and capacity to work with his
[counsel]." Thampy, however, believed that any lack of cooperation
on defendant's part would be volitional and that no mental illness
would prevent him from cooperating with his counsel.
At the conclusion of Thampy's testimony, the trial court found
that defendant was fit for trial with or without medication in
the instant case, as well as in his pending murder case. At a
later hearing, defendant complained unsuccessfully to the court
that defense counsel King had improperly failed to present his
"psychological workers" and street acquaintances as
witnesses at the fitness hearing. King responded that because
he did not have a professional witness who was of the opinion
that defendant was unfit, he had called no witnesses.
It is well established that "the failure to observe procedures
adequate to protect a defendant's right not to be tried while
unfit deprives him of his due process rights to a fair trial."
People v. Brandon, 162 Ill. 2d 450, 456 (1994); see also People
v. Nitz, 173 Ill. 2d 151, 156 (1996); People v. Gevas, 166 Ill.
2d 461, 468 (1995); People v. Murphy, 72 Ill. 2d 421, 430 (1978).
Accordingly, the legislature has enacted laws designed to protect
a defendant's right not to be tried while unfit. Section 104--11(a)
of the Code provides: "The issue of the defendant's fitness
for trial, to plead, or to be sentenced may be raised by the defense,
the State or the Court at any appropriate time before a plea is
entered or before, during, or after trial." 725 ILCS 5/104--11(a)
(West 1994). Further, at the time applicable herein, section 104--21(a)
of the Code provided: "A defendant who is receiving psychotropic
drugs or other medications under medical direction is entitled
to a hearing on the issue of his fitness while under medication."
725 ILCS 5/104--21(a) (West 1994).[fn2]
Here, under section 104--21(a), defendant was entitled to
a fitness hearing because he was prescribed Sinequan, a psychotropic
drug, during the course of the criminal proceedings against
him.
See People v. Birdsall, 172 Ill. 2d 464, 476, citing Brandon,
162 Ill. 2d 450; Gevas, 166 Ill. 2d 461; People v. Kinkead,
168
Ill. 2d 394 (1995). Indeed, defendant's fitness was questioned
by his defense counsel prior to trial and a hearing was scheduled,
but counsel withdrew his request for a fitness hearing based
upon
the finding of Dr. Thampy that defendant was "fit for trial"
and the findings of Drs. Fautek and Henry that he was "fit
for trial with medication." It was only post-trial and, notably,
post-Brandon that defense counsel resurrected this issue. Defendant
correctly asserts that, under Brandon and its progeny, the failure
herein to demand a fitness hearing prior to the trial and sentencing
constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. When the trial
court was presented with this evidence during the post-trial proceedings,
what it should have done under Brandon, Gevas, Kinkead, Birdsall,
and Nitz is to vacate defendant's conviction and sentence and
grant him a new trial. See People v. Neal, No. 82556, slip op.
at 9 (November 20, 1997). "Making an after-the-fact determination
as to the effect of the medication on defendant's fitness, as
the court did here, was improper." Neal, slip op. at 9.
However, after the trial court held the retrospective hearing
and defendant
initiated this appeal, our court issued its opinion in People
v. Burgess, 176 Ill. 2d 289 (1997).
"In Burgess we abandoned our prior view that retrospective
fitness determinations were always improper. Instead, we held
that a defendant who has been denied his right to a fitness hearing
under section 104--21(a) is not entitled to a new trial if evidence
subsequently presented to the court in a post-trial proceeding
establishes that the defendant did not, in fact, suffer any impairment
as a result of his ingestion of psychotropic medication. Burgess,
176 Ill. 2d at 302-04." Neal, slip op. at 9.
Therefore, because this court's decisions apply retroactively
to causes pending at the time they are announced, including cases
pending on direct review, we find that Burgess is dispositive
of the matter before us. See Neal, slip op. at 9-11.
Here, as in Burgess, 176 Ill. 2d at 299, the fitness hearing
was conducted approximately one year after the defendant's trial
and sentencing. More importantly, defendant's fitness at the time
of trial could be fairly and accurately determined after the fact
because, as in Burgess, the evidence showed that the medication
ingested by defendant did not have any effect on his fitness.
See Burgess, 176 Ill. 2d at 303-04; Neal, slip op. at 11. The
evidence presented, namely Dr. Thampy's testimony and the evaluations
of defendant by Drs. Fautek, Henry and Thampy which were made
contemporaneous to and in anticipation of the scheduled pretrial
fitness hearing, compels the conclusion that defendant was suffering
no impairment from the Sinequan prescribed for him during his
trial and sentencing hearings.
A trial court's determination regarding fitness will not be
disturbed on review unless it is against the manifest weight of
the evidence. People v. Haynes, 174 Ill. 2d 204, 226 (1996). In
the instant case, the trial court's finding was amply supported
by the record and, in accordance with Burgess, the court was correct
in making a retrospective determination as to whether the medication
taken by defendant rendered him unfit. See Neal, slip op. at 11.
Defendant contends that Burgess is distinguishable because here
defense counsel failed to seek an expert witness, failed to call
lay witnesses requested by defendant and was in a "thoroughly
conflicted position." However, defendant's counsel stated
that he was unable to find a "professional witness"
of the opinion that defendant had been unfit. Instead, counsel
opted to make the legal argument that under this court's prior
precedent, the failure to afford defendant a fitness hearing under
section 104--21(a) before his trial and sentencing automatically
entitled him to a new trial. This was a sound strategy that counsel
was not ineffective for attempting because, but for the advent
of Burgess, it would have succeeded. See Neal, slip op. at 12.
Thus, no violation of defendant's right to due process or effective
assistance of counsel occurred where the fitness hearing that
was conducted provided an adequate procedure by which meaningful
inquiry into defendant's fitness for trial and sentencing could
be made.
We next address defendant's contention that his convictions
for first degree murder based on an intentional or knowing state
of mind (hereinafter intentional/knowing murder) (Ill. Rev. Stat.
1991, ch. 38, pars. 9--1(a)(1), (a)(2)) must be vacated because
the trial court read the issues instruction for only one of the
two victims to the jury and no written instruction as to either
victim appears in the record. The State contends that the report
of proceedings, when considered together with the common law record,
indicates that the jury received a written instruction on both
victims. We agree. Therefore, because the jury received written
instructions, the fact that the verbal instruction was given as
to only one victim is inconsequential.
Instructions on the elements of the offense charged are among
those basic instructions that are essential to a fair determination
of the case by the jury, and a trial court has responsibility
for insuring that they are given. People v. Ogunsola, 87 Ill.
2d 216, 222 (1981). Additionally, instructions to a jury in a
criminal case must be written. People v. Moore, 42 Ill. 2d 73,
79 (1969), rev'd in part on other grounds, 408 U.S. 786, 33 L.
Ed. 2d 706, 92 S. Ct. 2562 (1972).
Here, the report of proceedings shows that while a verbal issues
instruction was given for intentional/knowing murder with regard
to the victim Ayax Gama, the court chose not to duplicate the
reading of the instruction as to the second victim, stating: "Now
as to *** each victim, you will receive the following instruction.
I will read the one where the named person is Ayax Gama."
After reading the instruction, Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions,
Criminal, No. 7.04A (3d ed. 1992) (hereinafter IPI Criminal 3d),
the court advised the jury that it would not read the corresponding
issues instruction for Rafael Gama, as that instruction would
differ only in that Rafael's name would be substituted for Ayax's.
The report of proceedings further reveals that, at the instruction
conference, IPI Criminal 3d No. 7.04A was given twice, suggesting
that a written instruction was given for each victim. The common
law record, however, contains only the final two paragraphs of
IPI Criminal 3d No. 7.04A as to each victim. Thus, the first page
of each instruction is missing.
Where the common law record is contradicted by matters in the
report of proceedings, a reviewing court must look at the record
as a whole to resolve the inconsistencies. People v. Fike, 117
Ill. 2d 49, 56 (1987). As a whole, the record herein indicates
that the trial court promised the jury that it would receive an
intentional/knowing murder instruction as to each victim; that
the court thereafter read aloud, in its entirety, IPI Criminal
3d No. 7.04A; that that same instruction was listed by the court
as "given" twice at the instruction conference; and
that the last page of the instruction as to each victim is contained
in the common law record. Given all of these facts, combined with
the jury's failure to request clarification of this instruction,
as would be expected if only a partial instruction were received,
we are convinced that the jury was appropriately instructed in
writing.
Defendant next contends that his convictions for armed robbery
must be vacated because the trial court inaccurately instructed
the jury on the law pertaining to those charges in response to
the jury's inquiry during deliberations. Our review of the record
reveals, however, that the trial court's response to the jury
was appropriate and a proper statement of the law.
During its deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court
which stated: "[I]n regards to the Armed Robbery charges,
in the instructions, `Second: that the defendant did so by the
use of force, or by threatening the imminent use of force;' Does
the intent of taking ones property have to be present prior to
the shooting-" The trial court sent back a note informing
the jury: "You have been instructed on the applicable rules
of law and you will not receive further instruction on the law.
You will resume deliberations in the morning." The following
day, the court asked the jury foreman if the question had been
"resolved" and the foreman indicated that it had not.
After discussion with counsel for both parties, and over defense
objection, the court further instructed the jury as follows: "It
is not imperative that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant formed the criminal intent to commit armed
robbery before committing murder. It is sufficient that the State
proved the elements of the murder and the armed robbery was part
of the same criminal episode."
The general rule is that the trial court has a duty to provide
instruction to the jury where it has posed an explicit question
or requested clarification on a point of law arising from facts
about which there is doubt or confusion. People v. Childs, 159
Ill. 2d 217, 228-29 (1994); People v. Reid, 136 Ill. 2d 27, 39
(1990). This is true even though the jury was properly instructed
originally. Childs, 159 Ill. 2d at 229. The trial court has a
further duty to respond to the jury's request with sufficient
specificity and accuracy to clarify the problem (People v. Caballero,
102 Ill. 2d 23, 42 (1984)), and the giving of a response which
provides no answer to the particular question of law posed has
been held to be prejudicial error (Childs, 159 Ill. 2d at 229).
In the case before us, the jury posed an explicit question which
manifested juror confusion on a substantive legal issue. Specifically,
the jurors wanted to know what role defendant's intent played
in deciding whether the State had proven the use of force required
to convict him of the armed robbery charges. Defendant contends
that the trial court's response did not relay the "legal
principle" that "the force used to commit [armed robbery]
*** had to be accompanied by the intent to commit that crime."
However, we believe the court correctly responded that the intent
to commit armed robbery need not be formulated prior to the use
of force, as long as the murder and the armed robbery, i.e., the
force and the taking, were "part of the same criminal episode,"
i.e., concurrent.
Because the gist of armed robbery is simply the taking of another's
property by force or threat of force, "proof that robbery
was intended is not required to sustain a conviction for armed
robbery." People v. Lewis, 165 Ill. 2d 305, 338 (1995). As
this court has reasoned, " `[i]f, as the result of a quarrel,
a fight occurs in which one of the parties is overcome, and the
other then, without having formed the intention before the fight
began, takes the money of the vanquished one, the offense committed
is robbery.' (Emphasis added.)" Lewis, 165 Ill. 2d at 338,
quoting People v. Jordan, 303 Ill. 316, 319 (1922).
Further, as long as there is some concurrence between the defendant's
use or threat of force and the taking of the property, a conviction
for armed robbery is proper. Lewis, 165 Ill. 2d at 339, citing
People v. Williams, 118 Ill. 2d 407, 416 (1987). This concurrence
may be established by a series of continuous acts. See Williams,
118 Ill. 2d at 416. Thus, the fact that the victim had been reduced
to a state of physical nonresistance before his property was taken
does not relieve the crime of the quality constituting robbery.
Jordan, 303 Ill. at 319; see also People v. Strickland, 154 Ill.
2d 489, 524 (1992). In the instant case, the trial court's instruction
accurately conveyed to the jury the concurrence between defendant's
use of force and the taking of the victims' property that was
necessary to sustain the armed robbery convictions.
Defendant also argues that the court's response misinformed
the jury that it need not find that the criminal intent to commit
armed robbery preceded or accompanied the murder in order to convict
for felony murder. However, we need not consider this contention
because we find that defendant's convictions for felony murder
must be vacated. A defendant cannot be convicted of more than
one murder arising out of the same physical act; when multiple
murder convictions have been entered for the same act, the less
culpable convictions must be vacated and sentence imposed on the
most serious offense. People v. Pitsonbarger, 142 Ill. 2d 353,
377-78 (1990); see also People v. Cardona, 158 Ill. 2d 403, 411
(1994). A killing that occurs when acts are performed with intent
or knowledge involves a more culpable mental state than does a
killing that occurs in the course of a felony. See Cardona, 158
Ill. 2d at 412.
While defendant has not raised this issue on appeal, a reviewing
court need not ignore grave errors of law which the parties on
appeal either overlook or decline to address. See People v. Reddick,
123 Ill. 2d 184, 199 (1988); People v. Olsewski, 257 Ill. App.
3d 1018, 1021-22 (1994). Here, while defendant was convicted on
four counts of murder, only two homicides occurred. Therefore,
it is necessary that defendant's convictions for intentional/knowing
murder be affirmed and that his convictions for felony murder
be vacated. See People v. Lego, 116 Ill. 2d 323, 344 (1987) (where
judgment was entered on four murder counts and there was only
one homicide, the court held that because it involves a more culpable
mental state, intentional murder is a more serious crime than
felony murder and therefore, upon affirming the defendant's conviction
for intentional murder, the other convictions must be vacated).
We next address defendant's contention that he was deprived
of a fair trial when, during the cross-examination of defense
witness Ann Collins and the rebuttal testimony of State's witness
Melissa Foss, the State elicited information revealing defendant's
involvement in other crimes. Defendant correctly states the general
rule that evidence of other crimes is not admissible if it is
relevant merely to establish the defendant's propensity to commit
crime. People v. Stewart, 105 Ill. 2d 22, 61 (1984). The State
argues that defendant has waived review of this issue because
he did not make timely objections to the "other-crimes"
evidence and because it was defense witness Collins who was largely
responsible for injecting the error into the record. While our
examination of the record reveals that defense counsel's objections
were adequate to preserve the issue for review, we agree with
the State that Collins voluntarily made a statement which constitutes
the gist of the "other-crimes" evidence at issue.
A defendant may not be heard to complain of errors which he
injected into his own trial. People v. Scott, 148 Ill. 2d 479,
531 (1992). The rationale for this rule is that it would be manifestly
unfair for a party to obtain a second trial on the basis of error
which he injected into the proceedings. Ervin v. Sears, Roebuck
& Co., 65 Ill. 2d 140, 144 (1976).
Here, Collins testified on direct examination that she had represented
defendant in Judge Bolan's courtroom from 1991 until 1993. From
this testimony, the jury could have concluded that Collins' representation
related to the instant case. However, at the beginning of the
State's cross-examination, when Collins was asked if she had ever
spoken to defendant outside of the lockup, she volunteered the
nonresponsive answer that she "did not represent [defendant]
on the elected case." This comment lead the jury to believe
that Collins did not represent defendant in the instant case and
that he therefore must have been involved in another criminal
matter. While it later became clear that the "elected case"
was a murder charge separate and distinct from the Gama murders,
it was Collins whose extraneous answer initially injected the
error alleged by defendant.
Additionally, we are unconvinced that the other-crimes evidence
elicited from Collins had no relevancy except to highlight defendant's
propensity to commit crime. "Evidence of other crimes is
admissible if it is relevant to establish any fact material to
the prosecution." Stewart, 105 Ill. 2d at 62. Here, on cross-
examination, the State attempted to attack the substance of Collins'
testimony, that defendant was unable to understand English, by
impeaching her with certain exhibits which showed that defendant
had made a statement in English to police in the matter in which
she had represented him. This impeachment necessitated revealing
that Collins' represented defendant in another criminal case.
Thus, where defendant had made his ability to speak and understand
English a question of fact which was vital to his defense, we
believe the State's impeachment evidence was relevant.
However, when other-crimes evidence is offered, the trial court
must "weigh the relevance of the evidence to establish the
purpose for which it is offered against the prejudicial effect
the introduction of such evidence may have upon the defendant."
Stewart, 105 Ill. 2d at 62. The record herein shows that, when
the State began this line of questioning, defense counsel objected
and the court agreed to let the prosecutor continue only after
he stated that he did not intend to go into the content of the
other case. Thereafter, when asked if she recalled whether defendant
had made a statement in English in that case, Collins again volunteered
nonresponsive information, stating that her case "was following
along a murder case *** which was the elected case." Defendant's
objection to Collins' "narrative" was sustained by the
trial court. Thus, where many of the details relating to the case's
content were attributable to Collins and the trial court attempted
to limit any undue prejudice to defendant arising from the State's
use of the other-crimes evidence, we find the admission of the
evidence was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. See
People v. Robinson, 167 Ill. 2d 53, 63 (1995) (admissibility of
other-crimes evidence rests within sound discretion of trial court
and its decision will not be overturned absent a clear abuse thereof).
Defendant also contends that the rebuttal testimony of probation
officer Foss was improper and unnecessary where she could have
testified simply that in 1990 defendant had been a "client"
of hers and that she did not accept "clients" who did
not speak English. We agree. See People v. Andrade, 279 Ill. App.
3d 292, 301-03 (1996) (officer's testimony improperly and unnecessarily
advised jury of defendant's prior criminal activity); People v.
Smith, 12 Ill. App. 3d 295, 297- 98 (1973) (improper testimony
regarding defendant's parole violation). When evidence of other
offenses is admissible for some relevant purpose, it should be
confined to such details as demonstrate its relevance, and not
the details of the crime. See People v. Butler, 31 Ill. App. 3d
78, 80 (1975). Here, the State could have easily accomplished
its purpose without referring to the fact that defendant had just
been sentenced at the time Foss met him or that she had accepted
him as one of her probationers.
Nevertheless, we find any error to be harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt. See Haynes, 174 Ill. 2d at 245-46. While the erroneous
admission of other-crimes evidence carries a high risk of prejudice
and ordinarily calls for reversal (People v. Lindgren, 79 Ill.
2d 129, 140 (1980)), the evidence must be so prejudicial as to
deny the defendant a fair trial, i.e., it must have been a material
factor in his conviction such that without the evidence the verdict
likely would have been different. People v. Williams, 161 Ill.
2d 1, 41-42 (1994). If the error is unlikely to have influenced
the jury, admission will not warrant reversal. See People v. Wilson,
164 Ill. 2d 436, 459 (1994).
The verdict in the instant case would not have been different
without Foss' reference to defendant's probationable offense.
We have established that some reference to another offense was
relevant and properly offered by the State and that it was defendant,
through Collins, who injected irrelevant details about that crime
and a separate murder into the record. Thus, this reference to
an additional crime committed by defendant was not likely to have
materially influenced the jury's decision. Further, while defendant
contends this error was compounded because no cautionary instruction
was given to the jury, defendant, having elicited the same error,
cannot claim the error was compounded when he failed to offer
a limiting instruction. See People v. Harris, 204 Ill. App. 3d
491, 498 (1990). Finally, the other evidence against defendant,
including his confession to police, his bragging about the murders
to his friend Torres, his fingerprints found at the scene and
his sale of a television like the victims' shortly after the murders,
established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, we find
that defendant was not prejudiced and was not denied a fair trial.
We next address defendant's contention that his waiver of jury
at sentencing was legally insufficient where the court improperly
admonished him that "[t]he jury must unanimously decide whether
or not you are eligible" for the death sentence, and defined
"unanimous" as "all people agree." Defendant
asserts that this admonishment misstated Illinois law, which mandates
that a finding of noneligibility requires the vote of only one
juror. See People v. McDonald, 168 Ill. 2d 420, 450 (1995); People
v. Ruiz, 132 Ill. 2d 1, 20-21 (1989); Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch.
38, par. 9--1(g). However, this issue is waived by defendant's
failure to object to the admonishment and his failure to raise
the issue in a post-trial motion. See People v. Simpson, 172 Ill.
2d 117, 147 (1996) (both a trial objection and a written post-trial
motion raising an issue are required for alleged errors that could
have been raised at trial). Further, based on the unique circumstances
present herein, we find the plain error rule is inapplicable.
This court has previously determined that a trial court need
not inform a defendant who desires to waive jury sentencing that
the death penalty cannot be imposed if a single juror opposes
it. Ruiz, 132 Ill. 2d at 20-21. In the case at bar, however, defendant
contends the court affirmatively misinformed him that unanimity
was required to find he was not death eligible. In People v. Morgan,
112 Ill. 2d 111 (1986), the defendant similarly contended the
trial court had erroneously advised him that the jury would have
to unanimously agree not to impose the death penalty by its use,
in the admonition, of the words "whether or not."
This court reasoned as follows in Morgan:
"[T]he common sense reading of the admonition is that there
must be a unanimous agreement by the jury `whether to' impose
the death penalty. Clearly, the judge informed the defendant that
unanimous agreement was required before the death penalty could
be imposed. Therefore, if there was not a unanimous agreement
to impose the death penalty, that penalty could not be imposed.
This would seem to refute the argument that the court's admonition
was to the effect that the jury also had to unanimously agree
not to impose the death penalty. We are not prepared to say that
the court erroneously advised the defendant in this regard, and
there is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant
gained an erroneous understanding of the law from the court's
statement." (Emphasis in original.) Morgan, 112 Ill. 2d at
141-42.
This reasoning applies equally to the court's admonition on
death eligibility made to defendant herein. We have repeatedly
held that it is sufficient, for a valid capital sentencing jury
waiver, for the trial court to explain to the defendant that he
is waiving the right to have a jury consider the capital sentencing
issues and that the sentencing decision would, therefore, be made
by the judge alone. People v. Brown, 169 Ill. 2d 132, 156 (1996);
People v. Wiley, 165 Ill. 2d 259, 301 (1995). Based on our examination
of the court's complete admonitions to defendant, which met these
requirements, we do not believe he was erroneously advised.
Defendant argues that Morgan is distinguishable because there
it was clear that counsel's advice, not the statements of the
court, had the greatest influence on the defendant's decision
(Morgan, 112 Ill. 2d at 141), while here the record fails to indicate
that defendant was relying on his counsel's advice. However, the
record reveals that not only did defendant discuss his decision
to waive a jury with his attorney, but it was he who initially
informed his attorney of this decision. Significantly, this decision
was based neither on the admonishments of the trial court or counsel's
advice, but rather on defendant's antipathy toward the jury that
had convicted him and his belief that he had successfully bribed
the trial judge into sparing him the death penalty.
Prior to the sentencing hearing, defendant explained that he
wanted the trial court to determine his fate because the jurors
"do not know much about the law," a fact evidenced by
their finding him guilty merely because he "signed papers."
Perhaps the true reason defendant wanted the trial court to sentence
him was revealed at the hearing on defendant's motion to vacate
the imposition of the death penalty. There, defendant stated under
oath that he had paid several thousand dollars to a probation
officer who assured him that she could influence the outcome of
his sentencing hearing. Given these circumstances, we believe
it disingenuous of defendant to contend the court's admonishments
misled him or in any way affected his voluntary waiver of a jury
for sentencing.
Defendant next contends that he was denied a fair sentencing
hearing by the introduction of evidence that did not meet the
"relevant and reliable" standard for admissibility set
forth in People v. Free, 94 Ill. 2d 378, 422-23 (1983). Specifically,
defendant contends that Jacinto Galueras' testimony that defendant
had robbed him was unreliable where the subsequent charges were
dismissed upon a judicial finding of no probable cause. Further,
the testimony of defendant's former employer, Daniel Gehrke, that
his company had suffered three break-ins shortly after defendant's
departure was unreliable because there was no evidence to connect
him with two of the three incidents.
The State argues this issue is waived by defendant's failure
to object to the evidence at the sentencing hearing and that no
plain error occurred. We agree. Although defendant raised this
issue in his post-trial motion, he waived any error in the admission
of this evidence at sentencing when he failed to make a contemporaneous
objection when the evidence was offered. See People v. Pulliam,
176 Ill. 2d 261, 279-80 (1997); Simpson, 172 Ill. 2d at 147. A
defendant's waiver of a capital sentencing issue will be excused
under the plain error rule where the evidence is closely balanced
or where the error is of such magnitude that the defendant was
denied a fair sentencing hearing. People v. Rissley, 165 Ill.
2d 364, 394 (1995); People v. Szabo, 94 Ill. 2d 327, 355 (1983).
The evidence at defendant's sentencing hearing was not closely
balanced. Defendant executed Ayax and Rafael Gama in their own
home after making them "beg for their lives," robbed
the men of their jewelry, cash, television and other belongings
and then bragged about the crimes to his friend Torres. Defendant
also had a history of criminal behavior which began shortly after
his arrival in Chicago from Puerto Rico and which included another,
yet untried, murder charge. While incarcerated, defendant engaged
in disruptive and destructive behavior and was found in possession
of 66 grams of marijuana and a pen knife. Defendant also threatened
a guard when, on another occasion, he was found in possession
of 94 grams of marijuana. Against this evidence, defendant presented
testimony in mitigation that he was unwanted by his family after
the death of his mother; that he was forced to live on the streets
and became a drug addict, committing burglaries and selling stolen
property to satisfy his addiction; and that he suffered from the
HIV virus and "felt horrible" about having given this
illness to his wife, Nancy. Defendant also continued to deny his
culpability in the Gama brothers' murders. Thus, the evidence
at defendant's sentencing hearing was not so closely balanced
as to require review of defendant's claim.
The alleged error is also not of such magnitude so as to deny
defendant a fair sentencing hearing. Jacinto Galueras testified
to a 1989 incident in which, while he and defendant were at Galueras'
house drinking, defendant suddenly struck Galueras in the head
with a beer bottle, rendering him unconscious. When Galueras awoke,
his money and car were gone. The parties stipulated that a judicial
finding of no probable cause was later entered as to this incident.
However, this court has previously determined that a finding of
no probable cause does not render otherwise uncorroborated testimony
inadmissible at the second phase of a capital sentencing hearing.
See People v. Brisbon, 106 Ill. 2d 342, 364- 65 (1985) (detective's
hearsay testimony as to dying victim's statement implicating defendant
in his murder, for which defendant was never prosecuted, was admissible
as aggravation at death penalty hearing on subsequent offense,
where the evidence was relevant and reliable).
As in Brisbon, the evidence herein was relevant as relating
to past misconduct by defendant and the sentencing body was aware
that the charge was dismissed for lack of probable cause and was
able to consider this in weighing its aggravation value. Further,
but unlike Brisbon, defendant could test the reliability of the
evidence by cross-examining Galueras, the complaining witness.
Therefore, if the trial court considered Galueras' testimony in
aggravation, which we find questionable given the court's comments
of record, no abuse of discretion occurred where the evidence
met the test for relevance and reliability. See Brisbon, 106 Ill.
2d at 365.
As to the other-crimes evidence presented by Daniel Gehrke,
the parties stipulated that defendant was convicted of felony
theft in regard to a break-in at Balmor Manufacturing Company
on July 28, 1989. However, Gehrke, an executive with Balmor, testified
that the company was broken into on three occasions during the
summer of 1989. A computer was stolen during each of the first
two burglaries and vandalism occurred during the last. Gehrke
stated that defendant had worked for Balmor until one month before
these incidents began.
We agree with defendant that where no evidence was offered to
connect him with the latter two break-ins, and he denied committing
them, the evidence was unreliable and should not have been received.
However, the sentencing court is presumed to recognize incompetent
evidence and disregard it (People v. Harris, 129 Ill. 2d 123,
164 (1989); People v. Bey, 51 Ill. 2d 262, 267 (1972)), and here,
contrary to defendant's assertion, there is nothing of record
which rebuts that presumption. Thus, the introduction of this
other-crimes evidence, even if erroneous, did not deprive defendant
of a fair sentencing hearing.
We next address defendant's claim that he was denied a fair
sentencing hearing because the court, in pronouncing its lengthy
findings and reasons for imposing the death penalty, made several
findings which were legally or factually insupportable. Defendant
specifically contends that the sentencing court erred in: (1)
placing additional reliance on the aggravating factors by which
it found defendant death eligible; (2) finding that an untried
murder case was a capital case under two different aggravating
factors; and (3) finding that defendant was a "parasite on
all women" and that his behavior while incarcerated indicated
that he had "no value for human life in the institution."
This issue is waived by defendant's failure to object at sentencing
or raise the issue in a post-trial motion. People v. Beals, 162
Ill. 2d 497, 510 (1994). Further, as noted above, the evidence
at defendant's sentencing hearing was not closely balanced. However,
we consider the merits of the issue to determine whether any error
was of the magnitude to deny defendant a fair hearing. See Rissley,
165 Ill. 2d at 394.
Our review of the record shows the first of defendant's contentions
to be without merit. As the court began its "finding of facts
and rulings of law," it noted that section 9--1(b) (Ill.
Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 9--1(b)) set forth aggravating factors
which were "a prerequisite," and further stated: "There's
two murders, and there's two felony murders. Each of those factors,
the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt to be the act of the
defendant. Each of those factors is sufficient to meet the qualifications
for the imposition of the death penalty." It is clear that
the court was simply reiterating those section 9--1(b) factors,
earlier found applicable to defendant, whose purpose is to "narrow
the class of persons eligible for the death penalty." Ill.
Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 9--1(b); see also People v. Hope,
168 Ill. 2d 1, 36 (1995). The court may also have been acknowledging,
correctly, that while the first stage of a death penalty hearing
is a nonweighing process, the weighing and balancing of the aggravating
and mitigating factors takes place at the second stage. See People
v. Todd, 154 Ill. 2d 57, 75 (1992); Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch.
38, par. 9--1(c) (the court shall consider any aggravating and
mitigating factors relevant to imposition of the death penalty;
aggravating factors may include but need not be limited to those
factors set forth in subsection (b)). Thus, the sentencing court,
having already determined that these statutory aggravating factors
existed under section 9--1(b), was statutorily authorized under
section 9--1(c) to weigh the existence of those same factors in
determining whether to impose the death penalty.
Defendant next argues that the sentencing court improperly considered
in aggravation that a pending murder charge against him was "a
capital crime." At the sentencing hearing, Chicago Police
Detective Richard Curley testified that, in January 1991, he discovered
the body of Jesus Gonzalez in a junkyard. Gonzalez's hands and
feet were bound and he had received gunshot wounds to the head,
neck and thigh. Assistant State's Attorney Pradeep Roy-Singh testified
that on February 20, 1991, defendant gave a handwritten statement
regarding Gonzalez's murder. In his statement, defendant admitted
that in exchange for two pounds of marijuana from his drug supplier,
Gomez, he agreed to locate Gonzalez, who had allegedly stolen
drugs from Gomez. Defendant enlisted the assistance of Alex Torres,
promising him a pound of marijuana if he helped with Gonzalez.
At Gomez instruction, defendant and Torres drove Gonzalez to a
garage where defendant shot Gonzalez in the leg. Defendant and
Torres then tied Gonzalez's arms and legs with an extension cord.
When Gomez arrived at the garage, defendant told him that he would
kill Gonzalez for another two pounds of marijuana and Gomez accepted
the offer. Defendant and Torres took Gonzalez to a scrap yard,
set him on the ground and shot him.
The court, in reviewing the evidence presented in aggravation
at sentencing, stated that the Gonzalez homicide, a kidnapping
followed by an agreement to kill a person for two pounds of marijuana,
was itself:
"a capital crime under [Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par.
9--1(b)] Section 5. The defendant committed the murder pursuant
to an agreement by which he was to receive *** money or anything
of value in return for committing the murder, or procured another
to commit the murder for money, or anything of value. Not only
did he agree to do it himself, he cut his cohort in on it, and
gave him a pound of marijuana, and the defendant reduced a human
life to not just two pounds of marijuana, but just one."
The sentencing court further noted that under section 9--1(b)(11),
the Gonzalez homicide was committed "in a cold, calculated
and premeditated manner pursuant to a preconceived plan, scheme
or design to take a human life by unlawful means." Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 9--1(b)(11).
Defendant concedes that the court could consider the underlying
facts of the Gonzalez homicide at sentencing herein, but argues
that the court "was not permitted to rely upon statutory
aggravating factors which are to be considered only in the event
of a conviction." However, we agree with the State that,
when taken in the total context of the court's remarks, the reference
to the statutory aggravating factors was simply part of the court's
overall consideration of the factual circumstances of the Gonzalez
homicide and was meant only to emphasize the seriousness of defendant's
conduct and his "debasement" of human life.
"The sentencing authority is to consider `all matters reflecting
upon the defendant's personality, propensities, purposes, tendencies,
and indeed every aspect of his life relevant to the sentencing
proceeding.' " People v. Munson, 171 Ill. 2d 158, 198 (1996),
quoting People v. Barrow, 133 Ill. 2d 226, 281 (1989). Additionally,
the sentencer may consider any relevant aggravating factors, statutory
and nonstatutory, in the process of selecting among that class
of defendant who will actually be sentenced to death. Munson,
171 Ill. 2d at 198. Here, when the totality of the sentencing
court's comments are considered, it becomes evident that the court's
reference to the statutory aggravating factors was incidental
to its larger consideration of the facts surrounding the Gonzalez
murder and what those facts revealed about defendant's personality
and prospects for rehabilitation. Thus, we find that defendant
was not deprived of a fair sentencing hearing by these references.
Finally, defendant contends that the sentencing court's comments
that defendant was a "parasite on all women" and that
he had "no value for human life in the institution"
lacked evidentiary support. Based upon our examination of the
sentencing hearing as a whole, we believe these comments were
either based upon the evidence presented or were reasonable inferences
therefrom. However, even if these comments were unfair characterizations,
any error arising from them is harmless given our finding that
the evidence at sentencing was not closely balanced. Thus, after
considering each of defendant's challenges to the court's findings,
we conclude that no error occurred to deprive defendant of a fair
sentencing hearing.
We next consider defendant's claim that his counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by his failure to contemporaneously object
to and raise in a post-trial motion various of the preceding issues.
Defendant's argument is without merit. "Under Strickland
v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct.
2052, defense counsel is ineffective only if: (1) counsel's performance
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) counsel's
error prejudiced the defendant. A court need not decide the first
prong of this test, whether counsel's performance was deficient,
before analyzing the prejudice component." People v. Coleman,
158 Ill. 2d 319, 349 (1994). As we have already determined in
this opinion, the issues defense counsel failed to preserve are,
for the most part, without merit, and did not prejudice defendant.
Further, on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing
to properly preserve issues for review, defendant's rights are
protected by Supreme Court Rule 615(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a)),
which allows a court to review unpreserved claims of plain error
that could reasonably have affected the verdict. Coleman, 158
Ill. 2d at 349-50.
Finally, the defendant makes several constitutional challenges
to the Illinois death penalty statute, each of which has been
previously rejected by this court. We decline to reconsider our
previous decisions rejecting the argument that the death penalty
statute violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments (U.S. Const.,
amends. VIII, XIV) because it places a burden of proof on the
defendant which precludes meaningful consideration of mitigation
evidence. See People v. Kitchen, 159 Ill. 2d 1, 47 (1994); People
v. Whitehead, 116 Ill. 2d 425, 465 (1987). We also decline to
reconsider our previous decisions rejecting the argument that
the death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it allows
the sentencer to weigh the "vague" aggravating factor
of "[a]ny other reason" why a defendant should be sentenced
to death. See People v. Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d 409, 470 (1996); People
v. Taylor, 166 Ill. 2d 414, 439 (1995). Lastly, we decline to
reconsider our previous holdings rejecting the argument that various
features of our death penalty statute, considered jointly, render
the statute unconstitutional. People v. Hobley, 159 Ill. 2d 272,
324 (1994); People v. Tenner, 157 Ill. 2d 341, 390 (1993).
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's convictions and sentences
for intentional/knowing murder and armed robbery are affirmed.
Defendant's convictions for felony murder are vacated. The clerk
of this court is directed to enter an order setting Wednesday,
May 13, 1998, as the date on which the sentence of death entered
in the circuit court of Cook County is to be carried out. Defendant
shall be executed in the manner provided by law. 725 ILCS 5/119--5
(West 1994). The clerk of this court shall send a certified copy
of the mandate in this case to the Director of Corrections, the
warden of Stateville Correctional Center, and the warden of the
institution where defendant is confined. Convictions affirmed
in part and vacated in part; death sentence affirmed. [fn1] The
record alternately spells this nickname "Boriqua" and
"Boricua." [fn2] Section 104--21(a) has been amended
twice in recent years and no longer exists in this form. However,
this court, in People v. Birdsall, 172 Ill. 2d 464, 475 n.1 (1996),
declined to retrospectively apply the first amended version of
section 104--21(a) to a matter, such as this one, involving a
direct appeal. See also People v. Johns, 285 Ill. App. 3d 849,
855-56 (1996); People v. McKay, 282 Ill. App. 3d 108, 115 (1996)
(where a defendant's right, if any, to a fitness hearing would
have accrued prior to the effective date of the amendments to
section 104--21(a), section 4 of the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS
70/4 (West 1994)) mandates that the original version of section
104--21(a) must be applied on appeal).
|
Need a speaker for an offender audience?