People v. Veach , 2016 IL App (4th) 130888 ( 2016 )

2016 IL App (4th) 130888FILED
March 11, 2016
Carla Bender
NO. 4-13-0888 4th District Appellate
Court, IL
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Coles County
BLACKIE VEACH, ) No. 12CF479
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) Mitchell K. Shick,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justice Holder White concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Appleton dissented, with opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Following a July 2013 trial, a jury convicted defendant, Blackie Veach, of two
counts each of attempt (first degree murder) (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 9-1(a) (West 2010)) and
aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(1), (f)(1) (West 2010)). The trial court later imposed
consecutive prison sentences of 16 years on defendant's attempt convictions. (Defendant's
aggravated battery convictions were lesser-included offenses on which the court imposed no
sentences.)
¶2 Defendant appeals, arguing only that he was denied the effective assistance of
trial counsel when his counsel stipulated to the admission, during his trial, of video recordings
containing prior consistent statements and bad character evidence. Because we conclude that we
may be required to consider matters outside the record to adjudicate defendant's claim on direct
appeal, we affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 A. The State's Charges
¶5 In December 2012, the State charged defendant with the aforementioned offenses.
Pertinent to this appeal are the State's attempt (first degree murder) charges, which were
amended in July 2013. Specifically, the State alleged that on December 12, 2012, defendant
"performed an act which constituted a substantial step toward the killing of *** individual[s] in
that [defendant] cut the throat of" Matthew Price and Renee Strohl.
¶6 B. The Pertinent Evidence Presented at Defendant's Trial
¶7 Because defendant challenges only his trial counsel's effectiveness, we limit the
following discussion to those facts that place defendant's claim in its proper context.
¶8 On the third day of defendant's July 2013 trial and outside the jury's presence, the
State and defense counsel stipulated to the admission of People's exhibit No. 24, a compact disc
(CD) containing a video recording of the December 12, 2012, interview between Johnny Price,
who was present during the events at issue, and a police detective. The trial court then addressed
defendant directly and determined that (1) he had spoken with his counsel about the stipulation
and (2) by stipulating, he waived any foundational objections to the recording. After defendant
agreed to the CD's admission, the court confirmed that the content therein was being offered as
substantive evidence. After reconvening the jury, the State called Johnny to the stand.
¶9 1. Johnny's Testimony
¶ 10 a. Direct Examination
-2-
¶ 11 On December 12, 2012, Johnny—who was 18 years old and lived in Toledo,
Illinois—rode with his grandmother to Charleston, Illinois, to visit his cousin, Matthew, at the
home Matthew shared with his girlfriend, Renee. Throughout that day, visitors came and went,
but that evening, only Matthew, Renee, Johnny, and defendant remained in the front room of the
house. Matthew was smoking "fake marijuana," otherwise known as K2, Renee was drinking
beer, and Johnny was drinking beer and smoking cannabis. Defendant was "drinking and
smoking fake marijuana" while talking with Matthew.
¶ 12 Sometime thereafter, Johnny was seated on a sofa, facing a "loveseat," where
Matthew and Renee were seated. Defendant was sitting behind Matthew. Johnny momentarily
looked away, but when he looked back, he saw defendant—who was now standing behind the
loveseat—cut Matthew's neck. Matthew jumped up, holding his neck, and told defendant to
"back the fuck up." As Renee picked up her telephone, defendant "cut" her as well. Matthew
then pushed defendant down onto a mattress, which was against the wall. During that time,
Johnny made his way to the kitchen and exited through the back door of the house. When
Johnny looked back, he saw defendant "chasing after [him]."
¶ 13 Johnny ran to the local restaurant and called his grandmother. He was "shaking
and crying," and too "scared" to dial 9-1-1. Johnny told the restaurant employees that his
cousin's neck had "been sliced." Sometime later, police arrived and transported Johnny to the
police station for an interview.
¶ 14 b. Johnny's Recorded Interview
¶ 15 Thereafter, the State moved to admit into evidence exhibit No. 24, which was the
CD containing Johnny's interview with the police. After the trial court confirmed that defense
-3-
counsel had no objection, the court admitted exhibit No. 24 into evidence, and at the State's
request, it published the recording for the jury's consideration.
¶ 16 During his interview with the police, Johnny recounted the entire incident (to
which he had testified during his direct examination), describing the knife attack six times.
Johnny also stated that (1) on the evening at issue, defendant claimed to be a member of a street
gang; (2) defendant was making gang signs and wanted Johnny to mimic his gestures; (3)
defendant compelled Johnny to smoke drugs that night; (4) defendant began having "problems"
with Johnny; (5) Matthew warned defendant that if he wanted to confront Johnny, defendant
would have to go through Matthew—or "that's what [Johnny was] guessing they said"; (6) after
Matthew told defendant he would have to go through him, defendant cut Matthew's throat; and
(7) defendant cut Renee and chased Johnny because defendant wanted to kill all the witnesses.
¶ 17 After playing Johnny's recorded interview with police, the trial court instructed
the jury that Johnny had been convicted of retail theft, and the jury could consider that
conviction only as it might affect his believability.
¶ 18 c. Cross Examination
¶ 19 Johnny admitted that during his police interview, he "probably" told the police
that he did not know if defendant had been smoking anything in Matthew's house. But he was
"confused" at the time, and now, in retrospect, Johnny knew defendant had been smoking.
Johnny also explained that during his interview, he was "confused," "scared," "high," and
"drunk" when he told the detective that he had jumped over the couch in the front room.
Actually, he "didn't jump over nothing." Johnny first tried to escape through the front door but
could not get it open, and so he headed for the back door.
¶ 20 2. Matthew's Testimony
-4-
¶ 21 a. Direct Examination
¶ 22 Prior to Matthew's direct testimony, the trial court informed the jury that (1)
Matthew had been convicted of three felonies and (2) the jury could consider his convictions
only as they might affect his believability.
¶ 23 Matthew, who was 22 years old, testified that in December 2012, he lived with his
then fiancée, Renee, in a home located in Charleston. Defendant, Matthew's longtime "best
friend," whom he had "always called [his] brother," "stay[ed] with [them] quite often."
¶ 24 On December 12, 2012, around 8:30 or 9 p.m., defendant visited Matthew's home,
bringing with him two 40-ounce containers of malt liquor as well as "the baseball bat he always
carried," which Matthew described as a small Louisville Slugger, a little longer than Matthew's
forearm. Defendant "[s]tarted talking and playing music." In addition to drinking alcohol,
defendant was smoking K2 with Matthew. Matthew remembered that he had earlier cut some
speaker wires with a kitchen knife that remained in the front room of the home. Later that
evening, Matthew saw defendant pick up the knife as defendant was going to the back door to
answer the knock of some visitors.
¶ 25 Eventually, the visitors left except for defendant and Johnny. Matthew and Renee
were sitting on the loveseat, Johnny was sitting on a sofa, and defendant was sitting on a black
chair. Sometime thereafter, Matthew and Renee got up from the loveseat and went into the
bathroom, where they had sexual intercourse. About 20 minutes later, they left the bathroom.
As they did so, defendant, who was standing outside the bathroom door, said, " 'What the hell' "
and " 'that's bogus.' " Unable to comprehend what defendant was complaining about, Matthew
returned to the loveseat with Renee. Johnny remained on the sofa. Defendant sat back down on
the black chair and resumed playing with the stereo radio.
-5-
¶ 26 After a while, defendant asked Matthew to meet him at the back porch, where no
one was located. After doing so, defendant told Matthew that "he had to put a hit out for Renee
[for] beating up his aunt [Debbie Davis,] who isn't actually his aunt." Matthew told defendant
that "it was just a female fight," and although Davis "got her ass whooped," Renee was charged
with aggravated battery. Matthew urged defendant to "let it go." Eventually, defendant stated,
"[a]ll right, all right bro, I got you." Thereafter, they returned to the front room of the house.
¶ 27 Upon their return, Matthew sat down on the loveseat, beside Renee, and
defendant "walked around [as if] he was going to sit in the black chair again," but after a couple
of seconds, he "went behind the loveseat to a black foldout chair." With defendant sitting behind
him, Matthew and defendant had a conversation about two street gangs. Defendant then told
Matthew, " 'You're not my brother. You never have been.' " Matthew did not get a chance to
respond, because, the next thing he knew, there was a "warmness running down [his] neck."
¶ 28 Matthew flung up his hand and "realized [he] was cut," and now his hand "started
to get cut," too. As Matthew "ducked down and spun around *** to the left," he saw defendant
"scooting over and cutting Renee." Defendant had in his hand the kitchen knife that Matthew
had earlier used. Matthew yelled, "['N]o[!]' " and "swung over the couch." Matthew believed
that he had grazed defendant somewhere in the face, causing him to drop the knife and fall
backward on a guest bed they had in their front room. Defendant said "not to call 9-1-1." As
Matthew walked toward defendant, Johnny ran between them, en route to the back door (the
front door was nailed shut). The resulting collision staggered Matthew back, giving defendant an
opportunity to "take off after [Johnny] and get out himself."
¶ 29 Renee was on the telephone, but because she was not coherent, Matthew took the
telephone from her and told the 9-1-1 operator on the other end to hurry up because their throats
-6-
had been slit and they were "bleeding out." The police and an ambulance arrived, and they were
transported to the hospital, where Matthew received stitches and was released that night. The
next day, December 13, 2012, Matthew went to the Charleston police department and provided a
statement, which the police recorded.
¶ 30 b. Matthew's Recorded Interview
¶ 31 The State then moved to admit into evidence the first track of People's exhibit No.
28, a CD containing two separate audio recordings, the first of which was Matthew's interview
with the police. After the trial court confirmed that defense counsel and defendant had stipulated
to the admission of that audio recording, the court admitted that portion of exhibit No. 28 into
evidence, and, thereafter, published the recording for the jury's consideration.
¶ 32 In his statement to the police, Matthew repeated the details of defendant's knife
attack four times, and he stated three times that defendant's motive was to retaliate for the
beating Renee inflicted on Davis. Matthew also stated that defendant "was a real big alcoholic,
and that's all he does now is drink." Matthew denied that on the night of the stabbing, any
conflict existed between defendant and Johnny.
¶ 33 c. Cross-Examination
¶ 34 Matthew admitted that, once or twice, he had threatened to kill himself over
Renee—not by using a knife but, rather, by hanging himself. He denied, however, that he ever
threatened Renee with a knife. He also denied telling other people that it was Johnny who had
cut him and Renee.
¶ 35 3. Renee's Testimony
¶ 36 a. Direct Examination
-7-
¶ 37 Renee, who was 24 years old, testified that she had a "rocky relationship" with
Matthew from March 2011 to February 2013. In December 2012, they lived together in a two-
bedroom house in Charleston. Renee noted that defendant (1) was at their home almost every
day and (2) stopped by around 5 p.m. on December 12, 2012. Thereafter, Renee testified
consistently with the accounts provided by Johnny and Matthew regarding the circumstances
preceding defendant's actions.
¶ 38 Renee noted that after exiting the bathroom with Matthew, they both sat on a
loveseat located in their front room. Defendant used the bathroom and returned to where he had
been seated. After a while, defendant stood up, took a folding chair that was leaning against a
wall, unfolded it, set it behind the loveseat, and sat down. Renee, then stated that "[t]he next
thing I remember was something along the lines of [']brother,['] something to do with
[']brother,['] and then I felt a sharp pain." Renee then stood up from the loveseat. Defendant was
sprawled sideways on a bed, on his back, and Matthew was standing over him, telling her, " 'Call
9-1-1. We need an ambulance. We've both been cut.' " Defendant said, " 'Don't call 9-1-1. It's
not that bad, and I'll help.' " Renee told defendant, " [']I'm sorry, I have to call 9-1-1. I think I'm
going to need stitches.['] " Matthew continued to say, " 'Call them, call them,' " and he struck
defendant. Renee did not see Johnny during this encounter and acknowledged that she did not
see who had cut her throat.
¶ 39 b. Renee's Recorded Interview
¶ 40 The following day, December 13, 2012, Renee provided a statement to the police,
which was recorded. The State moved to admit into evidence the second audio track of exhibit
No. 28—which contained Renee's statement—and publish it to the jury. After confirming with
defense counsel, as well as defendant, that they were stipulating to both the admission and
-8-
publication of the second audio track of exhibit No. 28, the trial court granted the State's oral
motion.
¶ 41 In her recorded statement, Renee recounted the events of December 12, 2012.
Renee also stated the following: (1) when defendant is intoxicated, he gets violent; (2)
defendant's mother told Renee that she had " 'heard stories of other people that had been hurt by
[defendant] when he drinks hard alcohol' "; (3) defendant threatened to kill someone if he ever
encountered that person; and (4) Matthew told Renee that defendant may have cut their throats
because of the fight between Renee and Davis. Renee denied that any controversy existed
between defendant and Johnny. Renee also disputed that Matthew told defendant he would have
to confront him first if defendant wanted to fight Johnny.
¶ 42 c. Cross-Examination
¶ 43 On cross-examination, Renee noted that in the summer of 2012, Matthew began
accusing her of having a physical relationship with defendant. Despite this claim, Renee stated
that Matthew never confronted defendant about his suspicions.
¶ 44 4. The Remaining Evidence Presented by the State
¶ 45 Justin Carder, a Charleston police officer, testified that defendant was arrested a
few minutes after the knife attack. Defendant had a smudge of blood on the left side of his face
and on both of his hands. Carder learned that other people had run out of the Charleston home.
Defendant identified those other people as Robert Jones and Darrell Enlow. As testified to by
another Charleston police officer, defendant claimed that Jones and Enlow had slashed the necks
of Matthew and Renee.
-9-
¶ 46 Forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing revealed that (1) Matthew's DNA
was on defendant's face, left hand, and left shoe and (2) Renee's DNA was on defendant's pants.
Other DNA samples, including the one from the knife, were unsuitable for comparison.
¶ 47 Alvina Wright testified that she had known Matthew for many years. Two days
after the stabbing, she saw Matthew at a local gas station and she asked him what had happened.
(The State objected on the ground of hearsay, and the trial court "sustain[ed] the objection for the
purpose of showing who cut Matthew's throat," but the court allowed the testimony for the
limited purpose of impeaching Matthew's testimony.) Wright stated that Matthew told her that
Johnny had cut his throat. (Previously, on cross-examination by defense counsel, Matthew
denied telling Wright that Johnny had cut his throat, adding that he did not even know Wright.)
¶ 48 5. Defendant's Testimony
¶ 49 At approximately 5:30 or 6 p.m. on December 12, 2012, defendant stopped by the
Charleston home occupied by Matthew and Renee. Observing that a social gathering was
occurring, defendant decided to stay. Defendant noted that along with Matthew and Renee,
Johnny was at the home as well as others who visited throughout the evening. At one point,
defendant answered a knock at the door. As he did so, defendant took the miniature baseball bat
that he customarily carried around with him, instead of the knife in the living room. Apparently,
one of the guests brought hydrocodone pills, which were being pulverized in the kitchen.
Defendant observed (1) Matthew and Renee snorting the hydrocodone powder and drinking
alcohol; (2) Matthew smoking cannabis and K2; and (3) Johnny drinking alcohol and smoking
cannabis and K2. Defendant stated that he was merely drinking alcohol.
¶ 50 Defendant denied forcing Johnny to smoke K2. Previously, on the one and only
occasion when defendant tried K2, he almost died, and he would not have forced anyone to
- 10 -
smoke something that had almost killed him. Defendant denied that he (1) was a member of any
gang, (2) told Johnny he was a member of a gang, and (3) flashed gang symbols at Johnny.
Defendant asserted, instead, that Matthew and Johnny were the ones making gang symbols and
claiming to be members of a street gang. Defendant also denied threatening Johnny.
¶ 51 Later that evening, all the guests had left except Johnny and himself. Eventually,
Matthew and Renee left the loveseat where they were seated and went into the bathroom
together, where they stayed for 20 minutes. This inconvenienced defendant because he had to go
to the bathroom. When Matthew and Renee finally reemerged from the bathroom, defendant
mentioned that it was bogus to use the bathroom for that purpose when the bedroom was right
down the hall. Defendant then used the bathroom, but when he came out, Matthew pulled him to
the back room and had a talk with him.
¶ 52 After the talk in the back room, defendant had to use the bathroom again. The
radio was on in the living room, and he heard no screaming or nothing unusual. When he came
out of the bathroom and returned to the living room, Johnny was nowhere to be seen, and
Matthew was bleeding from the neck. Matthew pushed defendant down onto a bed, grazing and
bloodying defendant's nose. Renee was screaming at Matthew to get off defendant. She gave
Matthew a shove and then ran to a bedroom. This gave defendant the opportunity to run out the
back door of the house. Defendant did not see Johnny, although someone (he could not tell who)
was running about 10 feet ahead of him.
¶ 53 Defendant admitted telling the police, falsely, that Jones and Enlow had kicked in
the door of the house and entered with guns and that he, defendant, had chased them out of the
house. Actually, he never saw either of them in the house, and the last time he saw Jones was
earlier that afternoon.
- 11 -
¶ 54 C. The Jury's Verdict and the Trial Court's Sentence
¶ 55 Following argument, the jury convicted defendant of all four counts alleged—that
is, two counts each of attempt (first degree murder) and aggravated battery. The trial court later
imposed consecutive prison sentences of 16 years on defendant's attempt convictions but did not
impose a sentence on defendant's aggravated battery convictions because the court determined
that these two counts were lesser-included offenses.
¶ 56 This appeal followed.
¶ 57 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 58 As noted earlier, defendant's only argument on appeal is that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, defendant alleges his counsel's decision to stipulate
to the admission of prior consistent statements and bad character evidence during his trial was
reversible error.
¶ 59 A. Defendant's Right to the Effective Assistance of Counsel
¶ 60 In Maryland v. Kulbicki, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 136 S. Ct. 2, 2-3 (2015), the United
States Supreme Court discussed the sixth amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel,
as follows:
"A criminal defendant 'shall enjoy the right … to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.' U.S. Const., [amend. VI].
We have held that this right requires effective counsel in both state
and federal prosecutions, even if the defendant is unable to afford
counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963).
Counsel is unconstitutionally ineffective if his performance is both
deficient, meaning his errors are 'so serious' that he no longer
- 12 -
functions as 'counsel,' and prejudicial, meaning his errors deprive
the defendant of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984)." (Emphasis in original.)
¶ 61 In People v. Simpson, 2015 IL 116512, ¶ 35, 25 N.E.3d 601, the Supreme Court
of Illinois recently discussed the defendant's burden when raising an ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claim, writing as follows:
"To show ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
demonstrate that 'his attorney's representation fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.' People v. Patterson, 192
Ill. 2d 93, 107 (2000) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687, 695 (1984), for this test). A 'reasonable probability' is
defined as 'a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome.' Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. A defendant must satisfy
both prongs of the Strickland test and a failure to satisfy any one of
the prongs precludes a finding of ineffectiveness. Patterson, 192
Ill. 2d at 107."
¶ 62 The United States Supreme Court has also cautioned that when reviewing an
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, " 'a court must indulge a strong presumption that
counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.' " Woods v.
Donald, 575 U.S. ___, ___, 135 S. Ct. 1372, 1375 (2015) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 689 (1984)). In Kulbicki, the Court criticized a federal court of appeals for having
- 13 -
"indulged in the 'natural tendency to speculate as to whether a different trial strategy might have
been more successful.' " Kulbicki, __ U. S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 4 (quoting Lockhart v. Fretwell,
506 U.S. 364, 372 (1993)).
¶ 63 The Supreme Court of Illinois has also addressed this subject, writing as follows:
"We have also made it clear that a reviewing court will be highly deferential to trial counsel on
matters of trial strategy, making every effort to evaluate counsel's performance from his
perspective at the time, rather than through the lens of hindsight." People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d
312, 344, 864 N.E.2d 196, 216 (2007). The Supreme Court of Illinois has also provided the
following guidance: "[I]n order to establish deficient performance, the defendant must overcome
the strong presumption that the challenged action or inaction may have been the product of
sound trial strategy. [Citations.] Matters of trial strategy are generally immune from claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Manning, 241
Ill. 2d 319, 327, 948 N.E.2d 542, 547 (2011).
¶ 64 B. Concerns That Arise in Direct Appeals in Which Defendants
Argue They Received Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶ 65 1. The Kunze Doctrine
¶ 66 Twenty-six years ago, in People v. Kunze, 193 Ill. App. 3d 708, 550 N.E.2d 284(1990), the defendant argued to this court on direct appeal, in part, that he was deprived of his
right to the effective assistance of trial counsel because of his counsel's (1) failure to investigate
his prior criminal history and (2) incompetence in advising him to exercise his right to testify.
After this court noted that the record before it contained no evidence that either addressed these
issues or pertained to conversations between the defendant and his trial counsel, the court wrote
the following:
- 14 -
"Where, as here, consideration of matters outside of the
record is required in order to adjudicate the issues presented for
review, the defendant's contentions are more appropriately
addressed in proceedings on a petition for post-conviction relief.
(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 122-1 through 122-8.) We
therefore decline to adjudicate in this direct appeal [defendant's]
contentions concerning the alleged incompetence of [defendant's]
trial counsel. An adjudication of a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel is better made in proceedings on a petition for post-
conviction relief, when a complete record can be made and the
attorney-client privilege no longer applies." Id.¶ 67 2. Cases Following Kunze
¶ 68 The Illinois Appellate Courts have widely followed the Kunze doctrine. See, e.g.,
People v. Kirklin, 2015 IL App (1st) 131420, ¶ 127, 29 N.E.3d 481 ("[a] collateral proceeding is
generally a better forum for adjudication of ineffective assistance claims"); People v. Clark, 406
Ill. App. 3d 622, 640, 940 N.E.2d 755, 772 (2010) (Second District: "[c]laims of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel are preferably brought on collateral review rather than direct appeal");
People v. Pelo, 404 Ill. App. 3d 839, 870-71, 942 N.E.2d 463, 490 (2010) (Fourth District:
because the record before the appellate court contained nothing to review regarding defense
counsel's trial strategy relating to an instruction limiting other-crimes evidence, the appellate
court was unwilling to deem counsel's failure to submit a limiting instruction ineffective
assistance and instead would await the defendant's pursuit of such a claim under the Post-
Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2008))); People v. Richardson,
- 15 -
401 Ill. App. 3d 45, 48, 929 N.E.2d 44, 47 (2010) (First District: "Where information not of
record is critical to a defendant's claim [of ineffective assistance of trial counsel], it must be
raised in a collateral proceeding."); People v. Parker, 344 Ill. App. 3d 728, 737, 801 N.E.2d 162,
169 (2003) (Third District: " 'Where the disposition of a defendant's ineffective[-]assistance[-
]of[-]counsel claim requires consideration of matters beyond the record on direct appeal, it is
more appropriate that the defendant's contentions be addressed in a proceeding for
postconviction relief, and the appellate court may properly decline to adjudicate the defendant's
claim in his direct appeal from his criminal conviction." (quoting People v. Burns, 304 Ill. App.
3d 1, 11, 709 N.E.2d 672, 680 (1999))); People v. Calvert, 326 Ill. App. 3d 414, 421-22, 760
N.E.2d 1024, 1030 (2001) (Fourth District: because the record before the appellate court
contained nothing to review with respect to why defense counsel stipulated to the State's use of
the defendant's prior aggravated battery conviction for impeachment purposes, the appellate
court declined to consider the defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct
appeal and instead invited the defendant to pursue his claim under the Act); People v. Holloman,
304 Ill. App. 3d 177, 186, 709 N.E.2d 969, 975 (1999) (Fourth District: Because "the record is
devoid of factual findings on the issues pertinent to defendant's claim" of ineffective assistance
of counsel, we "decline the opportunity to consider these questions. Rather, defendant may
pursue his claim under the [Act] [citation]."); People v. Flores, 231 Ill. App. 3d 813, 828, 596
N.E.2d 1204, 1214 (1992) (Fourth District: "Without any explanation from defendant's trial
counsel ***, it is extraordinarily difficult [for this court] to conclude *** that *** counsel's trial
level omissions do not constitute areas 'involving the exercise of judgment, discretion[,] or trial
tactics' " (quoting People v. Mitchell, 105 Ill. 2d 1, 12, 473 N.E.2d 1270, 1275 (1984))).
- 16 -
¶ 69 Some decisions of the appellate court have referred to a decision of the United
States Supreme Court, Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003), in which that Court
provided a thorough analysis regarding why it is almost always preferable that ineffective-
assistance claims be considered on collateral review rather than on direct appeal. In People v.
Durgan, 346 Ill. App. 3d 1121, 1141-42, 806 N.E.2d 1233, 1249 (2004), the Fourth District
Appellate Court cited Kunze and Massaro, as well as Holloman, in declining to consider the
defendant's ineffective-assistance argument on direct appeal and indicated instead that the
defendant could pursue his claim under the Act. At issue in Durgan was defendant's claim that
trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a motion to suppress evidence. Id. at 1142,
806 N.E.2d at 1250. In rejecting this argument, the appellate court noted that "the argument
defendant makes is almost never appropriate on direct appeal because absent a motion to
suppress, it is highly unlikely that the State would garner its resources to prove the propriety of
the officers' actions." Id.¶ 70 In People v. Bew, 228 Ill. 2d 122, 886 N.E.2d 1002 (2008), the Illinois Supreme
Court addressed the defendant's claim that her counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion
to suppress evidence. The Third District Appellate Court in Bew, in an order (People v. Bew,
No. 3-03-0779 (Dec. 21, 2006) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23)), had agreed
with that claim, reversed the defendant's conviction, and remanded for a new trial. Bew, 228 Ill.
2d at 124, 886 N.E.2d at 1004. The supreme court reversed the Third District and, citing
Massaro, held that the record on direct appeal was insufficient to address the argument for
suppression of evidence. Id. at 135, 886 N.E.2d at 1009. The Bew court concluded, as follows:
"Therefore, even though we find that defendant has, on this record, failed to prove ineffective
assistance of counsel, we note that defendant may raise these alternative grounds for suppression
- 17 -
under the [Act] [citation]. This disposition allows both defendant and the State an opportunity to
develop a factual record bearing precisely on the issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
at 135, 886 N.E.2d at 1009-10.
¶ 71 C. Types of Cases in Which Defendants Argue That They
Received Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶ 72 To clarify which direct appeals raising ineffective assistance of counsel may be
appropriately addressed by an appellate court, we suggest that such cases be divided into three
separate categories, which we describe as follows:
• Category A cases: direct appeals raising ineffective
assistance of counsel that the appellate court should decline to
address.
• Category B cases: direct appeals raising ineffective
assistance of counsel that the appellate court may address because
they are clearly groundless.
• Category C cases: direct appeals raising ineffective
assistance of counsel that an appellate court may address because
trial counsel's errors were so egregious.
¶ 73 1. Category A Cases: Direct Appeals Raising Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel That an Appellate Court Should Decline To Address
¶ 74 Category A cases are direct appeals in cases like Kunze and its progeny, in which,
for various reasons, the appellate court concludes that the record on appeal is not adequate to
resolve the defendant's contention. Experience shows that Category A cases comprise a very
large percentage of the direct appeals raising ineffective assistance of counsel, which should
- 18 -
come as no surprise. After all, most such claims raise (at least implicitly) the following
questions regarding what defense counsel allegedly did wrong: (1) What did defense counsel tell
the defendant and what specific suggestions or questions did counsel raise?; (2) What concerns
did the defendant express to his counsel?; (3) If the defendant made specific requests of his
counsel regarding the handling of the case, such as witnesses who could be contacted and called,
how specific was defendant and what information in support of these suggestions did he provide
to counsel?; (4) How did counsel respond to any of the suggestions he received from his client?;
(5) If counsel took no action in response to such suggestions, why not?; and (6) What overall
strategy did defense counsel have for the case, and what tactics did he employ (and why)
pursuant to that strategy?
¶ 75 Given the privileged nature of the matters described in the preceding paragraph, it
would be most extraordinary for the trial court record on direct appeal to contain any information
pertinent to any of these questions. This absence explains why the prudent and judicious course
for an appellate court dealing with a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on
direct appeal is almost always to (1) decline to address the issue (while explaining its reason for
doing so), (2) affirm the trial court's judgment, and (3) indicate that the defendant may raise the
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a postconviction petition. We note again that this
action is what the Supreme Court of Illinois took in Bew, cited above.
¶ 76 Instead of taking this prudent and judicious course of action, some appellate
courts have elected in Category A cases to address the defendant's argument on the merits. The
problem with this course of action is that an appellate court is essentially just guessing at the
answers to the many questions that the record does not contain. Taking this course of action is a
disservice to all parties concerned. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are usually raised
- 19 -
only in the most serious cases, and given the high stakes, the parties deserve an adjudication
based on a record that is complete and adequate, not on judicial speculation.
¶ 77 We find further support for the Kunze approach of not addressing claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal in the recent decision of the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals in United States v. Flores, 739 F.3d 337, 340 (7th Cir. 2014), in which that
court wrote about the difficulty an appellate court confronts when the trial court record is not
adequate for the appellate court to address a defendant's claim that he received ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. The Seventh Circuit also noted decisions of the United States
Supreme Court that hold that "counsel's strategic choices are presumed to be competent. As a
practical matter[,] that presumption cannot be overcome without an evidentiary hearing at which
the defendant explains his view of what went wrong and counsel can justify his choices." Id.¶ 78 Unfortunately, the sound policy the Fourth District first applied in Kunze has not
always been followed. An example is People v. Campbell, 332 Ill. App. 3d 721, 773 N.E.2d 776(2002), in which the defendant, convicted of first degree murder, raised ineffective assistance of
his trial counsel in his direct appeal. Specifically, the defendant argued that his trial counsel was
ineffective because, among other reasons, he failed to call two disinterested eyewitnesses. Id. at
731-32, 773 N.E.2d at 784. The record contained no information (as would almost always be the
case) regarding either what defense counsel was told about these witnesses or why he did not call
them to testify. Id. Nevertheless, the Fourth District Appellate Court erroneously treated this
case as a Category B appeal and rejected the defendant's argument on the merits. The court
concluded that "none of the testimony which defendant claims [these two witnesses] would have
given would have exonerated defendant," and the failure to call them was a matter of trial
strategy. Id. at 732, 773 N.E.2d at 785.
- 20 -
¶ 79 Campbell then sought habeas corpus relief, which the federal district court
denied. However, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted, in part, habeas corpus relief.
The Seventh Circuit ruled that Campbell presented a reasonable claim in the federal habeas
corpus proceeding for ineffective assistance of counsel and that the decision of the Fourth
District holding otherwise was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as
determined by Supreme Court precedent. Campbell v. Reardon, 780 F.3d 752, 762-72 (7th Cir.
2015). The Seventh Circuit remanded for an evidentiary hearing to be conducted by the federal
district court, noting that a hearing was "needed to develop the record on (1) the extent of
counsel's actual pretrial investigation and (2) what these witnesses would have said if called to
testify at trial." Id. at 772. Of course, had the Fourth District in Campbell declined to address
defendant's ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal and awaited his filing a postconviction
petition, what the Seventh Circuit ordered on remand is precisely the record that a circuit court
hearing on a postconviction petition could have developed.
¶ 80 Further, had the Fourth District treated Campbell's appeal as a Category A case
(as it should have), then (1) it could have avoided the embarrassment of having the Seventh
Circuit deem its decision "an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as
determined by Supreme Court precedent" and (2) the hearing needed to develop an appropriate
record to address Campbell's claims would have occurred much earlier, benefitting everyone.
¶ 81 2. Category B Cases: Direct Appeals Raising Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel That the Appellate Court May Address Because
They Are Clearly Groundless
¶ 82 On rare occasions, an appellate court may appropriately address a defendant's
argument on direct appeal raising ineffective assistance of counsel because the claim is
- 21 -
groundless. In such a case, answers to the questions mentioned earlier, that the trial court record
typically would not address, would not matter because the defendant's claim has no merit.
¶ 83 Some examples of category B cases are the following: People v. Davis, 2014 IL
App (4th) 121040, ¶ 24, 22 N.E.3d 1167 (to accept the defendant's argument, the trial court
would have to conclude that counsel was ineffective for failing to predict the future and to
anticipate a United States Supreme Court decision); People v. Rodriguez, 2014 IL App (2d)
130148, ¶ 88, 21 N.E.3d 466 (defense counsel's decision not to challenge an alleged discrepancy
between Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, Nos. 18.11, 18.12 (4th ed. 2000) and a
section of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/24-1.2 (West 2010)) did not constitute
deficient performance because the IPI instructions accurately stated the law and an objection to
the instructions would have lacked merit); and People v. Shelton, 401 Ill. App. 3d 564, 584, 929
N.E.2d 144, 163 (2010) (First District: defendant's ineffective-assistance claim based upon
defense counsel's alleged failure to call witnesses and introduce certain evidence was rejected on
direct appeal where the record showed that defense counsel had in fact done just that).
¶ 84 3. Category C Cases: Direct Appeals Raising Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel That an Appellate Court May Address Because
Trial Counsel's Errors Were So Egregious
¶ 85 On rare occasions, an appellate court can determine that trial counsel's errors were
so egregious that the appellate court can determine trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective
without requiring further evidence. Such a case arises when answers to the questions discussed
earlier in this opinion simply would not matter. The appellate court can determine, based on the
record before it, that defendant's trial counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the
- 22 -
proceeding would have been different. People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93, 107, 735 N.E.2d 616,
626 (2000). In addition, for a case to fit within Category C, the appellate court must be able to
conclude that because no justifiable explanation by trial counsel for his errors could possibly
exist, the court need not bother obtaining a record in which such an explanation might be
forthcoming.
¶ 86 A prime example of a case in which trial counsel's error was so egregious as to
constitute clear ineffective assistance based solely upon the record on direct appeal is the recent
decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois in People v. Simpson, 2015 IL 116512, ¶ 1, 25 N.E.3d
601, in which the supreme court affirmed a decision of the First District Appellate Court that had
reversed the defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the defense
counsel was ineffective. At the defendant's first degree murder trial, a witness testified that he
was near the crime scene on the date of the murder but did not recall what the defendant said to
him or what he told the police that night. Id. ¶ 14. "The State then admitted [the witness's]
videotaped statement to police in which he stated that defendant told him that he had hit the
victim 30 times with a bat. The State emphasized the statement in its closing argument." Id. ¶ 1.
The Supreme Court agreed that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the
introduction of the witness's statement where the "personal knowledge" requirement for
admission of a prior inconsistent statement was not satisfied under section 115-10.1(c)(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (id. (citing 725 ILCS 5/115-10.1(c)(2) (West 2010))).
¶ 87 An earlier example of a case in which trial counsel's error was sufficiently
egregious as to constitute clear ineffective assistance based solely upon the record on direct
appeal is the Second District's decision in People v. Fillyaw, 409 Ill. App. 3d 302, 948 N.E.2d
1116 (2011). In that case, trial counsel (as in Simpson) obviously did not understand the
- 23 -
admissibility of prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence under section 115-10.1 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 and failed to object when the State confronted one of its
witnesses with his signed statement (inconsistent with his trial testimony) in which the witness
wrote that, among other things, defendant Fillyaw told the witness that Fillyaw went to rob some
people, kicked the door down, started shooting, and shot three people. Id. at 308-09, 948 N.E.2d
at 1125. Of course, the witness was not present to actually see any of these actions Fillyaw told
him about, so he had no "personal knowledge" of these events, as required by section 115-10.1.
The Second District ultimately concluded that defendant had demonstrated the ineffective
assistance of his trial counsel, reversed his conviction, and remanded for a new trial. Id. at 317,
948 N.E.2d at 1131.
¶ 88 D. Determining Into Which Category Defendant's Ineffective-Assistance-
of-Counsel Claim Should Be Placed
¶ 89 Although at first blush it is not clear why defendant's trial counsel agreed to the
admission of the video recordings at issue in this case, given defendant's assertion that those
recordings contained prior consistent statements and bad character evidence, we nonetheless
conclude that this case is a Category A appeal. In other words, it is a direct appeal raising
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that this court should decline to address. That is
because the record before us, like the very large percentage of other direct appeals raising this
claim, is not adequate for this court to resolve it. The record contains no indication whatsoever
why defense counsel agreed to the admission of the video recordings in question. To resolve
defendant's claim, this court would need to guess at counsel's motivation. For reasons earlier
discussed in this opinion, we decline to do so.
¶ 90 In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of the previously mentioned decisions
of the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Illinois holding that (1) matters of
- 24 -
trial strategy are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) a
defendant must overcome the strong presumption that the challenged action or inaction may have
been the product of sound trial strategy. See, e.g., Manning, 241 Ill. 2d at 327, 948 N.E.2d at
267.
¶ 91 We reiterate that for a direct appeal to be deemed a Category C case, no justifiable
explanation by trial counsel for his errors could possibly exist. Thus, in the present case, we
would need to conclude that any answer to the question as to why defendant's trial counsel
agreed to the admission of the video recordings simply would not matter. We cannot so
conclude.
¶ 92 Accordingly, we deem the prudent and judicious course of action in this case is
(1) to decline to address defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in this direct appeal,
(2) to affirm defendant's convictions and sentences, and (3) paraphrasing the language used by
the Supreme Court of Illinois in Bew, to note that defendant may raise his claim pursuant to the
Act. If defendant were to take that course of action, then an opportunity to develop a factual
record bearing precisely on the issue in question would be available.
¶ 93 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 94 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 95 Affirmed.
- 25 -
¶ 96 JUSTICE APPLETON, dissenting:
¶ 97 For two reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision. First,
delaying the adjudication of defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel until a
postconviction proceeding is inconsistent with binding precedent from the supreme court.
Second, the record on appeal shows ineffective assistance.
¶ 98 Allow me to explain those reasons one at a time.
¶ 99 I. BECAUSE THE CLAIM IS BASED ON WHAT TRIAL COUNSEL
DID ON THE RECORD, THE TIME TO RAISE
THE CLAIM IS NOW, NOT LATER
¶ 100 If a constitutional claim "could have been *** raised" in the direct appeal, the
doctrine of procedural forfeiture bars the claim in a subsequent postconviction proceeding.
People v. Kokoraleis, 159 Ill. 2d 325, 328, 637 N.E.2d 1015, 1017 (1994). "An ineffective
assistance of counsel claim permits no wholesale departure from [that principle]." Id. If the
record on appeal affords the means of raising a claim of ineffective assistance, the defendant
must raise the claim on direct appeal, on pain of forfeiting the claim. People v. Tate, 2012 IL
112214, ¶ 14, 980 N.E.2d 1100.
¶ 101 The crucial question for our purposes is, What is a claim of ineffective assistance
that "could have been *** raised" in the direct appeal? Kokoraleis, 159 Ill. 2d at 328, 637
N.E.2d at 1017. The supreme court has laid down the following rule. A claim of ineffective
assistance "based on what the record discloses counsel did, in fact, do is subject to the usual
procedural default rule." Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 14, 980 N.E.2d 1100. By contrast, a claim of
ineffective assistance based on what counsel ought to have done, but failed to do, is not subject
to the rule of procedural forfeiture if the claim "depend[s] on proof of matters which could not
have been included in the record precisely because of the allegedly deficient representation."
- 26 -
People v. Erickson, 161 Ill. 2d 82, 88, 641 N.E.2d 455, 459 (1994). To quote Erickson more
fully:
"[T]he default may not preclude an ineffective-assistance claim for
what trial counsel allegedly ought to have done in presenting a
defense. [Citations.] An ineffective-assistance claim based on
what the record on direct appeal discloses counsel did in fact do is,
of course subject to the usual procedural default rule. [Citation.]
But a claim based on what ought to have been done may depend on
proof of matters which could not have been included in the record
precisely because of the allegedly deficient representation.
[Citation.]" Id. at 88, 641 N.E.2d at 458-59.
See also People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418, 427, 719 N.E.2d 664, 670 (1999); Kokoraleis, 159 Ill.
2d at 328-29, 637 N.E.2d at 1017.
¶ 102 For example, in one of the cases the majority cites, Bew, the defendant claimed,
on direct appeal, that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by omitting to do
something, namely, file a motion for suppression of evidence. Bew, 228 Ill. 2d at 124, 886
N.E.2d at 1004. Because no motion for suppression ever had been filed, the supreme court found
the record to be insufficient to address either party's argument on the issue of ineffective
assistance. Id. at 134, 886 N.E.2d at 1009. The supreme court added, however, that the
defendant was free to pursue his claim in a postconviction proceeding, in which an adequate
factual record could be developed. Id. at 135, 886 N.E.2d at 1009-10; see also People v.
Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 22, 989 N.E.2d 192 ("Bew and Massaro demonstrate that where,
as here, the defendant's claim of ineffectiveness is based on counsel's failure to file a suppression
- 27 -
motion, the record will frequently be incomplete or inadequate to evaluate that claim because the
record was not created for that purpose.").
¶ 103 In another case the majority cites, Campbell, the Seventh Circuit remanded the
case for an evidentiary hearing on an alleged omission by defense counsel: the failure to
interview some witnesses who would have given testimony favorable to the defendant.
Campbell, 780 F.3d at 772. The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance depended on proof of
what the witnesses would have said on the stand—proof that was absent from the record
precisely because of the alleged ineffective assistance, i.e., the failure to interview them and call
them as witnesses in the trial.
¶ 104 The present case is different from Bew and Campbell in that the ineffective
assistance is something trial counsel did, on the record. He explicitly agreed, on the record, to
the admission and publication of the CDs containing the statements that Johnny Price, Matthew
Price, and Renee Strohl had made to the police. It would be untenable for defendant to say that
his claim "depend[s] on proof of matters which could not have been included in the record
precisely because of the allegedly deficient representation." Erickson, 161 Ill. 2d at 88, 641
N.E.2d at 459. Consequently, Kokoraleis and its progeny give him no choice but to raise the
claim of ineffective assistance now, in his direct appeal. If defendant had waited until the
postconviction proceeding, the State would have filed a motion for dismissal on the ground of
procedural forfeiture—and rightfully so: the alleged acts of ineffective assistance were
memorialized in the record on direct appeal. "Reason to relax the bar [of procedural forfeiture]
occurs only when what is offered in the papers [attached to the postconviction petition] also
explains why the claim it supports could not have been raised on direct appeal." Id. at 87-88,
641 N.E.2d at 458. Considering the nature of his claim of ineffective assistance, I cannot
- 28 -
imagine what evidence defendant would need to attach to his postconviction petition beyond that
which already is in the transcript of the trial. See People v. Schaff, 281 Ill. App. 3d 290, 296,
666 N.E.2d 788, 791 (1996) (In the affidavits attached to his postconviction petition, "[The]
[d]efendant presents no evidence to support the claim of ineffective assistance which is not found
in the trial record."). His claim is based on agreements or stipulations that defense counsel made
on the record, and thus the claim can be adjudicated now.
¶ 105 By delaying the adjudication of defendant's claim—and claims like his—until a
postconviction proceeding, the majority not only prescribes a "wholesale departure from" the
rule of procedural forfeiture (Kokoraleis, 159 Ill. 2d at 328, 637 N.E.2d at 1017) and delays the
administration of justice, but the majority also puts the office of the State Appellate Defender in
a dilemma. On the one hand, the supreme court tells appellate counsel: "An ineffective
assistance claim based on what the record on direct appeal discloses counsel did in fact do is, of
course, subject to the usual procedural default rule." Erickson, 161 Ill. 2d at 88, 641 N.E.2d at
459. On the other hand, the majority tells appellate counsel that only "[o]n rare occasions"
(supra ¶ 85) may the appellate court appropriately address a defendant's argument on direct
appeal raising ineffective assistance of counsel (supra ¶ 85) and that even in cases such as this
one—cases premised on what trial counsel did, on the record—the claim must be put off until a
postconviction proceeding.
¶ 106 Buffeted by these opposing directives, what is an appellate counsel to do?
Wasteful hedging: that is what an appellate counsel must do. To be safe, appellate counsel has
to raise the claim on direct appeal, in obedience to Erickson. Then, in obedience to the Kunze
line of cases, appellate counsel has to raise the claim again, in a postconviction proceeding.
Consequently, the office of the State Appellate Defender, an already overburdened agency, has
- 29 -
to do double the work—which would be unnecessary if appellate counsel could count on us to
follow the aforementioned cases from the supreme court.
¶ 107 II. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
¶ 108 Having explained why, in my opinion, it is a mistake to shunt off defendant's
claim of ineffectiveness to a postconviction proceeding, I now will explain why I consider his
claim to have merit.
¶ 109 A claim of ineffective assistance has two elements: (1) deficient performance and
(2) resulting prejudice. People v. Minniefield, 2014 IL App (1st) 130535, ¶ 70, 25 N.E.3d 34. I
will organize my discussion accordingly.
¶ 110 A. Deficient Performance
¶ 111 Defense counsel's performance was deficient if it was "objectively unreasonable
under prevailing professional norms." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 71.
¶ 112 It can be objectively unreasonable of defense counsel to agree to the admission of
inadmissible evidence (People v. Fillyaw, 409 Ill. App. 3d 302, 315, 948 N.E.2d 1116, 1130
(2011)), but it is not always objectively unreasonable of defense counsel to do so. It might
appear, at the time, that the inadmissible evidence stands to benefit the defense more than hurt it,
in which case defense counsel could legitimately make a tactical decision to refrain from
objecting. People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 478-79, 795 N.E.2d 231, 240 (2003); People v.
Jackson, 2013 IL App (3d) 120205, ¶ 29, 2 N.E.3d 374. We should allow "wide latitude" for
such tactical decisions (People v. Cunningham, 376 Ill. App. 3d 298, 301, 875 N.E.2d 1136,
1140 (2007)), looking at all the circumstances from defense counsel's perspective at the time
(People v. Nowicki, 385 Ill. App. 3d 53, 82, 894 N.E.2d 896, 924 (2008)).
- 30 -
¶ 113 While being careful to avoid the false superiority of hindsight (People v. Mabry,
398 Ill. App. 3d 745, 753, 926 N.E.2d 732, 739 (2010)), we should expect something of tactical
decisions. We should not treat them as categorically sacrosanct or immune from scrutiny. Even
a tactical decision, such as a decision not to object (People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 344, 864
N.E.2d 196, 210 (2007)), has to be "objectively reasonable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
People v. Manning, 241 Ill. 2d 319, 343, 948 N.E.2d 542, 556 (2011); see also People v.
Simpson, 2013 IL App (1st) 111914, ¶ 19, 993 N.E.2d 527; People v. Moore, 2012 IL App (1st)
100857, ¶ 53, 964 N.E.2d 1276. A reviewing court decides de novo (People v. Hale, 2013 IL
113140, ¶ 15, 996 N.E.2d 607; People v. Morris, 2013 IL App (1st) 111251, ¶ 116, 997 N.E.2d
847) whether a defendant has rebutted the presumption that refraining from objecting could be
considered, under the circumstances, to be a sound trial strategy (People v. Macias, 2015 IL App
(1st) 132039, ¶ 82, 36 N.E.3d 373).
¶ 114 A logical preliminary question would be whether the statements Johnny Price,
Matthew Price, and Renee Strohl made to the police were indeed objectionable under the rules of
evidence, since professionally reasonable performance does not entail the making of
unmeritorious objections. See People v. Nieves, 193 Ill. 2d 513, 527, 739 N.E.2d 1277, 1284
(2000) (no ineffective assistance if "any objection *** would rightfully have been overruled").
According to defendant, the CDs were objectionable on two grounds: (1) they consisted (for the
most part) of prior consistent statements, i.e., statements substantially identical to those the
witnesses already had made in their testimony on direct examination; and (2) they referred to
uncharged bad acts and bad character traits of defendant.
¶ 115 Both (1) and (2) would have been valid objections if defense counsel had made
them in the jury trial. I will explain why.
- 31 -
¶ 116 1. Prior Consistent Statements
¶ 117 Generally, a prior consistent statement is inadmissible hearsay. People v. House,
377 Ill. App. 3d 9, 19, 878 N.E.2d 1171, 1179 (2007). I use the qualifier "generally" because
there are two exceptions to that rule. A prior consistent statement is admissible "(1) where the
prior consistent statement rebuts a charge that a witness is motivated to testify falsely, and (2)
where the prior consistent statement rebuts an allegation of recent fabrication." Id.¶ 118 "Under the first exception, the prior consistent statement is admissible if it was
made before the motive to testify falsely came into existence." Id. In other words, at the time
the declarant made the prior consistent statement, the declarant lacked any motive to tell a lie.
The declarant developed that motive only later, after the prior consistent statement.
¶ 119 "Under the second [exception], a prior consistent statement is admissible if it was
made prior to the alleged fabrication." Id.¶ 120 The idea behind both exceptions is that a witness who has been accused of
dishonesty can be rehabilitated by showing that the witness made the same statement earlier,
when the witness lacked any motive to be dishonest. This rehabilitation would be a sham—a
pretext to convince the jury by repetition—if earlier, when the witness made the prior consistent
statement, the witness had the same motive to be dishonest that the witness has now. A prior
consistent statement is admissible only if it was "made before the motive to fabricate arose."
People v. Harris, 123 Ill. 2d 113, 139, 526 N.E.2d 335, 346 (1988).
¶ 121 The State does not invoke either of those exceptions to the rule against prior
consistent statements. As far as I can see, there is no reason to suppose that Johnny Price,
Matthew Price, and Renee Strohl had a motive to fabricate that arose after they made their
statements to the police. If they had a motive to fabricate, they would have had that motive from
- 32 -
the start. The CDs, instead of being truly rehabilitative, were intended to bolster their credibility
with hearsay. Because the CDs contained inadmissible hearsay in the form of prior consistent
statements, they were objectionable on that ground. See Ill. R. Evid. 802 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011).
¶ 122 2. Uncharged Bad Acts and Bad Character Traits
¶ 123 "Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character
of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith except" as provided in various
sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (725 ILCS 5/115-7.3, 115-7.4, 115-20 (West 2012)),
none of which are applicable here. Ill. R. Evid. 404(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011).
¶ 124 Likewise, "[e]vidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not
admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion,"
except that, in a criminal case, an accused may offer evidence of his or her own "pertinent trait of
character," after which the prosecution may "rebut the same." Ill. R. Evid. 404(a), (a)(1) (eff.
Jan. 1, 2011); see also People v. Pennington, 2015 IL App (1st) 132354, ¶¶ 83-84; People v.
Randle, 147 Ill. App. 3d 621, 625, 498 N.E.2d 732, 736 (1986) ("[C]haracter evidence offered by
the prosecution to show the accused's propensity to violence is generally inadmissible because
the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant in being portrayed as a 'bad man' substantially
outweighs the probative value of the evidence. [Citation.] Such evidence of bad character may
be introduced by the prosecution only if the defendant first opens the door by introducing
evidence of good character to show that he is a quiet and peaceful person.").
¶ 125 Defendant argues the CDs were inadmissible not only because they abounded in
prior consistent statements but also because they accused him of uncharged bad acts and bad
character traits.
- 33 -
¶ 126 Specifically, defendant refers to the following representations in Johnny Price's
recorded statement to the police: (1) defendant claimed to be a member of the Latin Kings, a
street gang, and wanted Johnny Price to make gang signs; (2) he forced Johnny Price to consume
narcotics; (3) he had "problems" with Johnny Price; and (4) he cut Strohl's throat and chased
after Johnny Price because he wanted to kill all the witnesses.
¶ 127 As for Matthew Price's recorded statement, defendant argues he "made the
unfairly prejudicial comment that defendant 'was a real big alcoholic, and that's all he does now
is drink.' "
¶ 128 Finally, defendant argues that Renee Strohl, in her recorded statement, made the
following unfairly prejudicial comments about his character: (1) "I don't like [defendant] coming
to my house whenever he's intoxicated because he gets violent. His mother has told me, I've
never experienced anything up until today, heard stories of other people that had been hurt by
him when he drinks hard alcohol"; (2) shortly before the incident, defendant's mother "called and
asked me to tell [defendant] that he had court at [9 a.m.] and if he was going to be home. And[] I
said, [']Blackie[,] you have court at nine.['] And he said, [']I'm gonna be home by 10['] "; (3)
during the evening hours, defendant asked Strohl to invite Lizzie G. over because he wanted to
have sex with her; (4) "The only thing that [defendant] said to me that made me angry was he
told me that that Lizzie girl had given him [oral sex] on my daughter's bed, and he was like[,]
['G]ive me a high five,['] and I just said[,] ['L]ook, I told you I did not want anybody doing
anything on that bed['] "; and (5) defendant "talked about if Derrall Enlow would come to the
house[,] [defendant] would for certain kill him and he wouldn't clean up any of the blood."
¶ 129 The State argues the evidence of uncharged bad acts of which defendant
complains was admissible because these bad acts were "intertwined" with the charged offenses,
- 34 -
i.e., the cutting of Matthew Price's and Renee Strohl's throats, and "provided the background for
the events immediately surrounding the charged conduct."
¶ 130 Evidence of other bad acts can be admissible if, without such evidence, things
people did at the time of the offense would seem implausible or inexplicable. People v.
Rutledge, 409 Ill. App. 3d 22, 26, 948 N.E.2d 305, 308 (2011); People v. Carter, 362 Ill. App. 3d
1180, 1190, 841 N.E.2d 1052, 1060 (2005); People v. Manuel, 294 Ill. App. 3d 113, 124, 689
N.E.2d 344, 351-52 (1997). In other words, evidence that the defendant committed uncharged
wrongs can be admissible if such evidence provides a necessary background to people's behavior
at the time of the charged crime—behavior that otherwise would make no sense to the jury. In
that case, the evidence of other bad acts would be offered not to prove that the defendant is a
wicked person who, by nature, is prone to commit crime; rather, the evidence would be offered
to present a coherent, logically intelligible narrative of the charged crime. Carter, 362 Ill. App.
3d at 1191, 841 N.E.2d at 1060-61.
¶ 131 That does not mean the evidence is automatically admissible for that purpose. I
have tried to be careful to say that, for the sake of presenting a coherent narrative, the evidence
of other bad acts can be admissible, because even when evidence of other bad acts has a relevant
purpose other than to show the defendant's propensity to commit crime, the trial judge must
weigh the probative value of the evidence against its unfairly prejudicial effect. People v. Illgen,
145 Ill. 2d 353, 365, 583 N.E.2d 515, 519 (1991).
¶ 132 Weighing probative value against unfair prejudice, the trial court probably would
have overruled a propensity objection to defendant's alleged remark that he would kill Derrall
Enlow if he entered the house, because that remark explained why defendant allegedly picked up
- 35 -
the steak knife from the TV table when he went to answer the back door (apparently, he wanted
to be prepared in case it was Enlow who was knocking).
¶ 133 Likewise, the trial court probably would have overruled a propensity objection to
defendant's allegedly chasing Johnny Price, because chasing him arguably showed a desire to
intercept or eliminate witnesses—a desire defendant would have had only if he knew he was
guilty of cutting Matthew Price's and Renee Strohl's throats. In that regard, the purpose would
have been to show a consciousness of guilt, not a propensity to commit crime. "Evidence of
other crimes is admissible if it is relevant for any purpose other than to show the defendant's
propensity to commit crime." (Emphasis added.) People v. Pikes, 2013 IL 115171, ¶ 11, 998
N.E.2d 1247.
¶ 134 I do not see, though, how defendant's alleged declaration of membership in the
Latin Kings and his forcing Johnny Price to smoke K2 were probative of anything other than
defendant's supposed aggressive, violent, unsavory character. It would be one thing if Johnny
Price told the police, unequivocally: "Defendant wanted me to make gang signs, but I refused to
do so, and he forced me to smoke K2, but one hit is all I would take. He became irate at me
because of these refusals, and he threatened to beat me up. That's when Matthew Price told him,
'You'll have to go through me first.' " If Johnny Price had told the police that, one might infer
that defendant "went through" Matthew Price by cutting his throat, in which case what happened
before would have been necessary to a coherent narrative. See Carter, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 1191,
841 N.E.2d at 1060-61. But Johnny Price merely told the police that defendant had unspecified
"problems" with him, and Johnny Price only speculated that defendant threatened to beat him up,
and he only speculated that Matthew Price replied that defendant would have to go through him
first ("that's what I'm guessing they said"). That Johnny Price could only speculate what
- 36 -
defendant and Matthew Price told one another regarding him—if indeed they had any
conversation at all regarding him—made the probative value of these other bad acts low
compared to the unfair prejudice to defendant.
¶ 135 That defendant had been known to hurt people when he got drunk was blatant
propensity evidence, and if defense counsel had objected to it, there would have been nothing to
weigh. The only possible function of this evidence was to suggest that, as someone who had a
known history of hurting people when drunk, defendant was just the type of person who would
cut the throats of Matthew Price and Renee Strohl in a drunken rage.
¶ 136 It is unclear that the remaining evidence of which defendant complains even
qualifies as "other crimes, wrongs, or acts." Ill. R. Evid. 404(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011). The court
date his mother called about could have been in a civil matter. And as for his eagerness to have
sex with Lizzie G., it seems unlikely a jury would think, "Since he's crude and licentious, he's
just the sort of person who would cut someone's throat."
¶ 137 But membership in the Latin Kings, forcing someone to smoke a dangerous
narcotic, and being a violent drunk clearly were bad acts or bad character traits. See id.; Ill. R.
Evid. 404(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011). I can discern no strategic reason to acquiesce to the
presentation of that inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial evidence.
¶ 138 Again, whether to object is a strategic decision. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d at 344, 864
N.E.2d at 210. Although we should give "wide latitude" to strategic decisions (Cunningham,
376 Ill. App. 3d at 301, 875 N.E.2d at 1140), we should expect them to be "objectively
reasonable" (internal quotation marks omitted) (Manning, 241 Ill. 2d at 343, 948 N.E.2d at 556).
I realize that just because evidence is objectionable, defense counsel does not automatically have
to object to it and that, pursuant to a logical strategy, defense counsel could reasonably refrain
- 37 -
from making what would have been a legally meritorious objection. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d at 478-
79, 795 N.E.2d at 240. Nevertheless, I am unable to see how it was objectively reasonable of
defense counsel to agree to the wholesale presentation of the statements that Johnny Price,
Matthew Price, and Renee Strohl had made to the police. The agreement is inexplicable; it
makes no sense.
¶ 139 Defense counsel's stated reason for entering into the agreement was simply
fallacious. He reasoned to the trial court that if he used the statements for impeachment, as he
intended to do, he would "open the door" anyway and the statements in their entirety would
"[come] in." Likewise, the prosecutor alluded to "the doctrine of completeness." Actually, as
defendant explains in his brief, the doctrine of completeness makes additional parts of a
statement admissible only to the extent necessary to "prevent the jury from being misled, to place
the admitted portion in context so that a true meaning is conveyed, or to shed light on the
meaning of the admitted portion." People v. Craigen, 2013 IL App (2d) 111300, ¶ 46, 997
N.E.2d 743. I do not see how the impeaching parts of the statements would have been
misleading in the absence of a presentation of the statements in their entirety.
¶ 140 The all-or-nothing assumption was incorrect. See People v. Andersch, 107 Ill.
App. 3d 810, 820, 438 N.E.2d 482, 489 (1982). If a witness has been impeached with a prior
inconsistent statement, the party who called the witness may bring out additional portions of the
statement "to qualify or explain the inconsistency and rehabilitate the witness." People v.
Harris, 123 Ill. 2d 113, 142, 526 N.E.2d 335, 347 (1988). But any portion of the statement
which does not qualify or explain the inconsistency is inadmissible. Id.; Andersch, 107 Ill. App.
3d at 820, 438 N.E.2d at 489. So, defense counsel was mistaken in his assumption that he would
- 38 -
open the door to the statements in their entirety simply by using excerpts of the statements for
impeachment.
¶ 141 There was no strategic reason for stipulating to the admission of the statements in
their entirety. The stipulations were objectively unreasonable, and one can only assume that
defendant personally consented to the stipulations only on the basis of defense counsel's
mistaken understanding of the law.
¶ 142 B. Resulting Prejudice
¶ 143 A defendant suffers prejudice from the deficient performance of defense counsel
if there is a "reasonable probability" that, but for the deficient performance, the outcome of the
proceeding would have been more favorable to the defendant. Minniefield, 2014 IL App (1st)
130535, ¶ 71, 25 N.E.3d 34. To establish a "reasonable probability," a defendant has to do more
than show that the deficient performance had "some conceivable effect on the outcome."
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693 (1984). And, yet the defendant need not go so far
as to show that the deficient performance "more likely than not altered the outcome." Id.Rather, a "reasonable probability" is "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome." Id. at 694.
¶ 144 The closer the case is, the more likely that defense counsel's deficient
performance altered the outcome. See People v. Butcher, 240 Ill. App. 3d 507, 510, 608 N.E.2d
496, 498 (1992). This was a close case. Johnny Price, Matthew Price, and Renee Strohl were
flawed witnesses.
¶ 145 That Johnny Price, who apparently was in possession of a cell phone, would
refrain from calling 9-1-1 is somewhat troubling but perhaps is explainable in that he assumed
his grandmother, whom he apparently did call, would call 9-1-1. If Johnny Price, however,
- 39 -
declined Gayla Jenkins's offer to call 9-1-1 (as she testified he did), that is a real problem,
considering that, for all Johnny Price knew, his first cousin and his first cousin's girlfriend were
at that very moment lying in their front room, bleeding to death. That Jenkins (as she also
testified) saw Johnny Price laughing while talking on his cell phone, immediately after he fled
the scene of the throat-cutting, could suggest he was not quite as devastated as he at first
presented himself to be.
¶ 146 As for Matthew Price, he was a felon, and one can only wonder about his level of
consciousness after consuming alcohol, hydrocone powder, cannabis, and K2.
¶ 147 According to Matthew Price, defendant dropped the knife onto the floor when he
pushed defendant down onto the bed. Detective Anthony West testified, however, that he found
the knife on top of the television table, as pictured in People's exhibit No. 32.
¶ 148 There also was the discrepancy between what Matthew Price told Wright, Tina
Broom, and Adriana Pedigo and what he told the jury. It is unclear what motive those three
would have had to lie. They all described themselves as Matthew Price's longtime friends, and
Pedigo even testified that Matthew Price was like a brother to her. According to Wright's
testimony, Matthew Price told her that Johnny Price had cut his and Renee Strohl's throats
because Johnny Price had given them money to buy drugs for his own use and they had
consumed the drugs instead of giving them to him, Johnny Price. Pedigo testified that Matthew
Price had told her three times it was Johnny Price who had cut his throat. And Broom testified
that Matthew Price had told her both defendant and Johnny Price were standing behind him
when his throat was cut. Thus, the testimony of Matthew Price, a felon and a heavy drug user,
was in direct contradiction to what he supposedly had told his friends: Wright, Broom, and
Pedigo.
- 40 -
¶ 149 As for Renee Strohl, she admitted she had no idea who had cut her throat.
Hydrocone and rum, consumed together, probably did not enhance her alertness.
¶ 150 In short, I would find a reasonable probability that the wholesale presentation of
the police statements made a difference in the outcome. "The danger in prior consistent
statements is that a jury is likely to attach disproportionate significance to them. People tend to
believe that which is repeated most often, regardless of its intrinsic merit, and repetition lends
credibility to testimony that it might not otherwise deserve." People v. Smith, 139 Ill. App. 3d
21, 33, 486 N.E.2d 1347, 1355 (1985). In their statements to the police, Johnny Price and
Matthew Price repeated their accounts again and again. In addition to being influenced by this
repetition, the jury could have been inclined to think that a mean drunk who was a member of a
street gang was just the sort of person who would cut someone's throat. The record shows
prejudice, and I would reverse the trial court's judgment on the ground of ineffective assistance
of trial counsel.
- 41 -