People v. Castillo , 428 Ill. Dec. 636 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                            
    2018 IL App (1st) 153147
    FIRST DISTRICT
    SECOND DIVISION
    December 18, 2018
    No. 1-15-3147
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS                  )      Appeal from the
    )      Circuit Court of
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                           )      Cook County, Illinois.
    )
    v. 	                                                 )      No. 11 CR 21352
    )
    JOHNNY CASTILLO,                                     )      Honorable
    )      Timothy Joseph Joyce,
    Defendant-Appellant.                          )      Judge Presiding.
    JUSTICE MASON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
    Justices Pucinski and Hyman concurred in the judgment and opinion.
    OPINION
    ¶1          This first degree murder case arose from defendant Jonny Castillo’s and codefendant
    Christopher Rodriguez’s 1 brutal beating of William Jimenez, who sustained severe brain injuries.
    After the June 26, 1998 beating, Jimenez lived for almost 13 years in a semicomatose state until
    his death on March 26, 2011. After Jimenez died, Castillo and Rodriguez were charged with first
    degree murder and felony murder predicated on robbery. Following a separate but simultaneous
    bench trial, Castillo was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 20 years’
    imprisonment. He was acquitted of the felony murder charge. Castillo appeals, claiming that his
    first degree murder conviction should be reduced to involuntary manslaughter because the State
    failed to prove that he kicked and punched Jimenez knowing his conduct created a strong
    probability of death or great bodily harm. Castillo also claims that the trial court improperly
    considered against him Rodriguez’s incriminating statement that they “stomped” Jimenez in
    finding that Castillo had the requisite knowing mental state. We affirm Castillo’s first degree
    1
    Rodriguez is not a party to this appeal.
    1-15-3147
    murder conviction because (i) there was sufficient evidence establishing Castillo’s knowing
    conduct when he severely beat Jimenez and (ii) the trial court only considered admissible
    evidence.
    ¶2                                            I. Background
    ¶3          Jacqueline and Jimenez were married in 1984 and lived on Claremont Street in Chicago.
    Jimenez was also known by his nickname, “Rico.” In June 1998, Jimenez was 34 years old, was
    a member of the Latin Kings gang, and had a drinking problem. Castillo was 19 years old, and
    Rodriguez was 17 years old. Castillo was a member of the Gangster Disciples gang, and
    Rodriguez was a member of the Spanish Cobras gang. The Spanish Cobras and Gangster
    Disciples were rival gangs to the Latin Kings.
    ¶4          Around noon on June 26, 1998, Jacqueline left home to go to work, and Jimenez left at
    the same time to visit his mother, who lived near 24th Street and Spaulding Avenue in Chicago.
    ¶5          In the evening hours of June 26, 1998, Victor Denis was near the corner of Claremont
    Avenue and Taylor Street hanging out with Rodriguez, Castillo, and Castillo’s father. Denis saw
    Castillo earlier in the day, and Castillo had been drinking. Eventually Jimenez approached the
    group. Jimenez exchanged words with Rodriguez and Castillo about gangs, and the argument got
    heated. Jimenez ran off. Rodriguez and Castillo chased Jimenez and caught up to him about two
    houses down the street. Rodriguez then threw Jimenez to the ground, and Rodriguez and Castillo
    started kicking him. Jimenez was lying on the ground not fighting back. Castillo was kicking
    Jimenez in the abdomen. At some point, Rodriguez and Castillo stopped kicking Jimenez, and
    they ran away. Denis did not see Rodriguez or Castillo go through Jimenez’s pockets, try to take
    anything from him, or put anything in their pockets as they ran away. Denis saw Jimenez lying
    on the ground, not moving, not speaking, and not making any noises; he did not cry out for help.
    Denis did not see Rodriguez, Castillo, or Jimenez with any weapons, such as guns, knives, or
    2
    1-15-3147
    bats. Denis was unsure if the beating lasted over a minute.
    ¶6          Later that evening, James Crejan saw Rodriguez, his nephew, come around the corner of
    Taylor and Claremont moving pretty fast, but not necessarily running. Crejan noticed a little bit
    of blood on Rodriguez’s pants and shoes. Concerned that his nephew might be injured, Crejan
    caught up to Rodriguez and asked if everything was okay. Rodriguez responded, “we f*** him
    up.” Crejan asked, “who” and Rodriguez responded, “just the flake.” Crejan understood “the
    flake” to mean a rival gang member, and Rico was the only rival gang member in the
    neighborhood. Like Rodriguez, Crejan was a member of the Spanish Cobras. Crejan told
    Rodriguez to “go home and wash up.” Rodriguez left, and Crejan went back to the corner.
    ¶7          Within the next day or two, Crejan asked Rodriguez what had happened on June 26.
    Rodriguez said that he and Castillo were walking down Claremont minding their own business
    when Rico started harassing and intimidating them, throwing up gang signs. Rodriguez and
    Castillo started walking away, but Rico came off the porch and kept following them until he got
    dangerously close, and then a serious fight broke out. Rico ran away, and Rodriguez and Castillo
    caught up to Rico and beat him mostly with their hands, elbows, knees, and feet. Rodriguez said
    they “stomped” Rico, which Crejan interpreted to mean “that he beat him down.”
    ¶8          Louie Coletta lived at 918 South Claremont with his family. In the later evening hours of
    June 26, 1998, Coletta parked his car and started walking toward his home when he saw a person
    lying on the sidewalk, about 10 feet from his front gate. The individual was not moving. Coletta
    went inside and told his aunt what he saw. Coletta and his aunt shone a light from their porch and
    saw the individual lying on the sidewalk was a man. He was not moving but was making a faint
    noise, a gurgling sound. Coletta’s aunt called 911.
    ¶9          At about 11:30 p.m., Officer David Striegel of the Chicago Police Department responded
    to the call. When he arrived at the scene, he saw a man lying on the sidewalk who had blood on
    3
    1-15-3147
    his head, face, and body. He could not communicate with the man, who was not speaking,
    making any noise, or moving. The man’s pants pockets were pulled inside out. Officer Striegel
    could not determine the man’s identity. He called for an ambulance, and the man was transported
    to Mount Sinai Hospital.
    ¶ 10           Some time after midnight, Detective Robert Fujara of the Chicago Police Department
    went to Mount Sinai to investigate an unidentified male who was found on the street at 918
    South Claremont. Detective Fujara could not determine the man’s identity because he was in a
    coma.
    ¶ 11           Even though Jimenez did not come home that night and Jacqueline determined that her
    husband was not at his mother’s house, Jacqueline did not fill out a missing persons report
    because Jimenez on occasion would not come home. After a couple of days, in an attempt to
    locate him, Jacqueline called the police to find out whether Jimenez had been arrested. On June
    30, Jacqueline received a telephone call instructing her to go to Mount Sinai. When Jacqueline
    got to the hospital, she saw Jimenez in a room on a ventilator. Jacqueline contacted Detective
    Fujara and identified her husband as the man found at 918 South Claremont. Detective Fujara
    then attempted to locate the offenders. A few weeks later on July 22, 1998, Jacqueline again
    contacted Detective Fujara and provided names of individuals who had information relating to
    the attack on her husband.
    ¶ 12           The next day, based on the information Jacqueline gave him, Detective Fujara spoke to
    Michelle Crejan, who was Rodriguez’s legal guardian and Crejan’s sister. Michelle told
    Detective Fujara that Rodriguez committed the battery, and she also gave him Castillo’s name.
    The same day, Detective Fujara questioned Rodriguez and Castillo. Based on his questioning,
    Detective Fujara arrested Castillo at 12:45 p.m. Castillo gave a statement to Assistant State’s
    Attorney Stan Gonsalves at 11:10 p.m. ASA Gonsalves prepared a written summary of Castillo’s
    4
    1-15-3147
    statement, which Castillo read and signed. Castillo’s summarized statement states in relevant
    part:
    “This statement taken regarding the aggravated battery of William
    Jimenez which occurred on June 26, 1998, at 918 South Claremont at
    approximately 10:00 p.m.
    ***
    John states that on June 26th, 1998, at around 10:00 o’clock at night, he
    was hanging out on the corner of Taylor and Claremont with his friend
    Christopher Rodriguez. John states that he *** has known Christopher since they
    were little kids. John states that his father was standing on the corner with them
    but that he left with his friends. John states that he—that his friend Christopher is
    a member of the Cobra street gang.
    John states that while he and Christopher were hanging out, some
    Hispanic guy came over and started talking to Christopher. John states that the
    Hispanic guy started arguing and he had heard the Hispanic guy say that he is a
    Latin King. John states that the Latin Kings and Cobras are rival gangs. John
    states that Christopher continued to argue with the guy about gangs and that the
    Hispanic guy started to run away northbound on Claremont. John states that
    Christopher chased the guy and he followed Christopher. John states that
    Christopher caught up with the Hispanic guy, grabbed him and threw him to the
    ground. John states that this Hispanic guy was lying face down on the ground on
    the sidewalk.
    John states that Christopher started kicking the Hispanic guy on the head
    numerous times. John states that as Christopher was kicking the guy, he came
    5
    1-15-3147
    over and punched the guy in the sides. John states he also kicked the guy as he
    was [lying] on the ground.
    John states that he saw that the Hispanic guy was not moving so he
    stopped kicking him. John states that Christopher continuing kicking the guy in
    the head. John states that as Christopher was kicking the guy, he walked away.
    John states that the Hispanic guy that he and Christopher kicked and
    punched never had a gun or a knife or any type of weapon on him at any time.”
    ¶ 13          Rodriguez also gave a statement, which incriminated Castillo. Rodriguez stated that he
    and Castillo got into an argument with Jimenez over gangs. Jimenez ran away, and they chased
    him. After Rodriguez caught up to Jimenez, he tripped Jimenez, who fell facedown on the
    sidewalk. As Jimenez was lying on the sidewalk, Rodriguez kicked Jimenez in the head a
    number of times, and Castillo kicked Jimenez all over his body. Rodriguez and Castillo stopped
    kicking Jimenez and walked away. Jimenez was not moving and was still lying facedown on the
    sidewalk.
    ¶ 14          Castillo was charged in 1998 with aggravated battery and attempted murder. Castillo was
    found not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of aggravated battery. On October 25, 1999,
    Castillo was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, which he served.
    ¶ 15          Jimenez lived for almost 13 years after the beating. During that time, Jimenez was in a
    semicomatose state, had a feeding tube and catheter, and received oxygen from a tracheotomy
    tube. When Jimenez was not hospitalized or in a rehabilitation facility, he lived with Jacqueline,
    who took care of him with help from her family, friends, and visits from a nurse or doctor. In
    March 2011, Jimenez returned to the hospital and died on March 26, 2011. From June 26, 1998,
    until his death, Jimenez never regained consciousness and could not speak with Jacqueline,
    though she believed he communicated by blinking his eyes.
    6
    1-15-3147
    ¶ 16          After Jimenez died, Dr. Adrienne Segovia of the Cook County Medical Examiner’s
    Office performed an autopsy and reviewed a computed tomography scan from June 26, 1998,
    which showed blunt head trauma, extensive scalp swelling, and hematoma. Jimenez also suffered
    from a shearing injury, which arises from blunt head trauma and causes the cells in the brain to
    shear apart, disrupting the communication between the cells in the brain. When Jimenez was
    admitted to Mount Sinai in June 1998, his blood alcohol level was 0.243, more than three times
    the legal limit to drive. Dr. Segovia explained that alcohol consumption can prolong the time that
    it takes for internal bleeding to clot. And to some degree, alcohol would affect an individual’s
    balance, causing him or her to stagger or fall down. Dr. Segovia noted that the emergency room
    report for June 1998 only mentioned swelling and made no mention of any external wounds. Dr.
    Segovia opined that Jimenez died as a result of cerebral injuries due to an assault and the manner
    of death was homicide. According to Dr. Segovia, Jimenez never substantially recovered from
    the injuries he sustained in 1998.
    ¶ 17          Castillo and Rodriguez were charged with first degree murder and felony murder
    predicated on the robbery of Jimenez. Based on the incriminating statements each made against
    the other, the trial court granted Castillo’s and Rodriguez’s request for separate but simultaneous
    bench trials. In granting the motion, the trial court stated that it would hear the cases
    simultaneously but would “of course be cognizant of what evidence is properly admissible
    against each defendant and which evidence is not admissible against each defendant.” Castillo’s
    and Rodriguez’s separate counsel each examined the State’s witnesses and presented opening
    statements and closing arguments.
    ¶ 18          During his trial testimony, Crejan suffered a seizure near the end of the State’s direct
    examination, so defense counsel was unable to conduct cross-examination. The parties later
    stipulated that Crejan would have testified that “Rodriguez told him that they were already
    7
    1-15-3147
    drinking, they had just gotten out of work, they got paid and they were drinking. Mr. Jimenez
    was already drunk and they beat him up.” The trial court asked Castillo’s counsel whether he
    wanted the stipulation considered on behalf of Castillo, and he responded, “No.” The trial court
    stated, “Then it won’t be.” The trial court further asked Castillo’s counsel whether there was any
    cross-examination that Castillo wished to pursue regarding Crejan’s interrupted trial testimony,
    and counsel answered, “No.”
    ¶ 19          The trial court allowed Detective Fujara to read the written statement that Castillo gave in
    his presence but explicitly stated that Castillo’s statement would not be considered as to
    Rodriguez because of the motion for severance. And when the State moved to admit Castillo’s
    and Rodriguez’s written statements into evidence, the trial court again explicitly stated that each
    defendant’s statements would not be admitted against the other.
    ¶ 20          At the close of the State’s case, the trial court granted Castillo’s and Rodriguez’s motion
    for a directed finding on the felony murder charge, determining that the State failed to offer
    sufficient evidence demonstrating that codefendants robbed Jimenez at the time of the beating.
    ¶ 21          During closing arguments, the State reiterated that use of Castillo’s and Rodriguez’s
    written statements would be limited to his own case, respectively. The State argued that the
    beating did not involve just fists but “it was kicking and it was stomping.” The State continued
    that Jimenez never rolled over during the kicking and stomping. The State also referred to
    Rodriguez’s statement that “they f*** up the flake and then later told Mr. Cre[j]an that they
    stomped on the victim.” Rodriguez’s counsel highlighted the absence of external injuries noting
    that “it’s not like they stomped him and there was a lot of blood and it got all over Chris’[s]
    clothing and they are like oh, look, we are really creating some terrible, huge damage here.”
    Rodriguez’s counsel likened the beating to a fight. Castillo’s counsel argued that he was not
    accountable for Rodriguez’s actions and there was no outward manifestation of any injuries to
    8
    1-15-3147
    Jimenez when Castillo and Rodriguez beat him. In rebuttal, the State indicated that it would
    probably jump back and forth between both defendants. The State argued that “just because
    Castillo didn’t stomp him in the head, doesn’t mean when he was working with his partner in
    concert to beat this man, that he’s not accountable.” The State also argued that “[t]he stomping,
    the kicking, the injury. It was intentional.”
    ¶ 22          The trial court found that Castillo and Rodriguez acted in concert and Castillo was
    accountable for Rodriguez’s actions. In rendering its finding, the trial court stated “[b]ecause the
    fact that he was beaten and kicked and stomped, Mr. Rodriguez uses the word stomp when he
    speaks to Mr. Crejan and talks about how we caught him. Which as [the State] pointed out,
    certainly is not indicative or supportive of a fight.” The trial court also noted that Castillo was 19
    and Rodriguez 17 at the time of the beating and that it could “fully appreciate this probably took
    place whatever the duration was, before Mr. Castillo and Mr. Rodriguez could think it through.
    And not thinking it through is part of what’s criminal.” The trial court found both Castillo and
    Rodriguez guilty of first degree murder and sentenced both of them to the minimum 20 years’
    imprisonment. The trial court denied Castillo’s motion for a new trial, in which he argued that
    the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had the requisite mental state to support a
    conviction for first degree murder. Castillo timely appealed.
    ¶ 23                                            II. Analysis
    ¶ 24          Castillo first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, claiming that the State failed to
    prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew there was a strong probability of death or great
    bodily harm when he beat Jimenez. Castillo argues that his conviction for first degree murder
    should be reduced to involuntary manslaughter because the evidence demonstrated that he acted
    recklessly and not knowingly.
    ¶ 25          When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the appropriate inquiry is whether,
    9
    1-15-3147
    “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
    fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis
    omitted.) Jackson v. Virginia, 
    443 U.S. 307
    , 319 (1979); People v. Gray, 
    2017 IL 120958
    , ¶ 35.
    In other words, a reviewing court will reverse a conviction only if the evidence is so improbable
    or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. Gray, 
    2017 IL 120958
    , ¶ 35.
    ¶ 26           A defendant commits first degree murder when his acts cause death to another and he
    (i) intends to kill or do great bodily harm or knows his acts will cause death, (ii) knows his acts
    create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm, or (iii) attempts or commits a forcible
    felony other than second degree murder. 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a) (West 2012). Accordingly, a
    defendant may commit first degree murder in three different ways: intentionally, knowingly, or
    felony murder. People v. Coats, 
    2018 IL 121926
    , ¶ 22. At issue here is whether Castillo
    knowingly committed first degree murder. An individual acts with knowledge when he is
    consciously aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause a particular result. People v.
    McDonald, 
    2016 IL 118882
    , ¶ 51 (citing 720 ILCS 5/4-5 (West 2014)). A defendant’s
    knowledge is generally established by circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof. People v.
    DiVincenzo, 
    183 Ill. 2d 239
    , 252 (1998), abrogated on other grounds by McDonald, 
    2016 IL 118882
    ; People v. Bui, 
    381 Ill. App. 3d 397
    , 419 (2008).
    ¶ 27	          In contrast, a defendant commits involuntary manslaughter when he unintentionally, but
    recklessly, performs an act that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another. 720 ILCS
    5/9-3 (West 2012); McDonald, 
    2016 IL 118882
    , ¶ 50. Reckless conduct occurs when an
    individual consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will follow and
    such disregard is a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would
    exercise under the same circumstances. 720 ILCS 5/4-6 (West 2012); McDonald, 2016 IL
    10
    1-15-3147
    118882, ¶ 50.
    ¶ 28          The defendant’s mental state differentiates first degree murder from involuntary
    manslaughter. McDonald, 
    2016 IL 118882
    , ¶ 51. In particular, “[i]nvoluntary manslaughter
    requires a less culpable mental state [recklessness] than first degree murder [intentionally or
    knowingly].” People v. Robinson, 
    232 Ill. 2d 98
    , 105 (2008) (citing DiVincenzo, 
    183 Ill. 2d at 249
    ). Whether the defendant is guilty of first degree murder or involuntary manslaughter is a
    question for the trier of fact. DiVincenzo, 
    183 Ill. 2d at 253
    ; People v. Leach, 
    405 Ill. App. 3d 297
    , 312 (2010).
    ¶ 29          After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational
    trier of fact could have found that Castillo’s conduct constituted knowing first degree murder. In
    his own words that were memorialized in his written statement, Castillo admitted that he, along
    with Rodriguez, chased Jimenez after Jimenez ran off following a heated exchange of words.
    Castillo watched Rodriguez grab Jimenez and throw him to the ground, where Jimenez lay
    facedown on the sidewalk. Castillo saw Rodriguez kick Jimenez in the head numerous times, and
    Castillo simultaneously punched Jimenez in his side and kicked him as he continued to lie
    facedown on the ground. It was only after Castillo saw that Jimenez was not moving that he
    stopped kicking him, but he again watched as Rodriguez continued to kick Jimenez in the head.
    Denis’s eyewitness account was substantially consistent with Castillo’s written statement. And
    less than two hours after the beating, Coletta and Officer Striegel both observed Jimenez lying in
    the street not moving and not speaking. Likewise, Detective Fujara could not communicate with
    Jimenez the night of the beating because he was in a coma. Based on these witnesses’
    observations, there was sufficient evidence to find that Castillo acted knowingly when he and
    Rodriguez repeatedly beat Jimenez to the point he could not move or speak. Moreover, Castillo’s
    brutal beating of Jimenez was supported by the medical evidence, which established that Jimenez
    11
    1-15-3147
    suffered from blunt head trauma and serious brain injuries at the time of the beating. In
    particular, the shearing injury sustained by Jimenez, caused by blunt force sufficient to cause the
    cells of his brain to permanently shear apart, supports the trial court’s finding that Castillo’s
    conduct was intentional.
    ¶ 30          Castillo urges this court to find that his conduct in beating Jimenez was reckless, but to
    do so would require this court to ignore the evidence that Jimenez never displayed a weapon
    during the heated argument before he ran away, only to be chased by Castillo and Rodriguez,
    thrown to the ground where he lay facedown—defenseless and motionless—while enduring
    repeated punches and kicks by both Castillo and Rodriguez in the head and abdomen. Even after
    Castillo noticed that Jimenez was motionless, he left him on the sidewalk unable to get away and
    watched Rodriguez continue kicking Jimenez in the head. There was no evidence that Jimenez
    ever fought back, in any manner at any time, or even moved after being thrown facedown on the
    sidewalk.
    ¶ 31          In any event, Castillo claims that bare-handed blows are never sufficient to find the
    requisite knowing mental state for first degree murder. Although a bare-fisted punch would
    generally be insufficient to find knowing first degree murder (People v. Brackett, 
    117 Ill. 2d 170
    ,
    180 (1987)), Castillo repeatedly punched and kicked Jimenez with his feet while he knew
    Rodriguez was simultaneously and repeatedly kicking Jimenez in the head. See DiVincenzo, 
    183 Ill. 2d at 254
     (punching and kicking the victim may be sufficient to find the defendant guilty of
    murder); People v. Castillo, 
    2012 IL App (1st) 110668
    , ¶ 63 (the defendant’s mental state
    supported a finding of murder and not recklessness where the defendant punched the victim
    several times, knocked him to the ground, and kicked him in the head while he was lying
    motionless). Castillo cannot credibly claim that he did not know simultaneous and repeated kicks
    and punches to Jimenez’s head and body after being thrown to the ground would create a strong
    12
    1-15-3147
    probability of death or great bodily harm.
    ¶ 32           Certainly Castillo could not have foreseen that Jimenez would unfortunately live in a
    semicomatose state for close to 13 years following the beating, but it was foreseeable and certain
    that Castillo’s and Rodriguez’s coordinated blows to Jimenez’s head and body after he was
    thrown to the ground would naturally cause great bodily harm or death. Likewise, Jimenez’s high
    blood alcohol level on the day of the beating may have inhibited his body’s ability to clot, but the
    medical evidence established that he died from cerebral injuries due to assault, not intoxication.
    And Castillo’s voluntary consumption of alcohol on that day cannot reduce his conviction from
    knowing first degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. 720 ILCS 5/6-3 (West 2012); People
    v. Jackson, 
    2017 IL App (1st) 142879
    , ¶ 87 (Mason, J., dissenting).
    ¶ 33	          Castillo also contends that the trial court misconstrued the record in finding that he beat
    Jimenez unconscious. Castillo claims that Jimenez could not have been unconscious after the
    beating because he was found at 918 South Claremont, while the beating occurred about three
    houses down. From this, Castillo infers that Jimenez must have been conscious and moved from
    one location to the other. But such an inference is not reasonable based on the evidence in the
    record that Jimenez was not moving during the beating, and any inference from the evidence
    must be construed in favor of the State, not Castillo. People v. Baskerville, 
    2012 IL 111056
    , ¶ 31.
    Moreover, Denis’s description of where the incident occurred was clearly an approximation
    intended not to identify the exact location of the beating but to demonstrate how far Jimenez ran
    before Rodriguez caught up to him and threw him to the ground. Alternatively, Castillo theorizes
    that Jimenez became unconscious from hitting his head on the sidewalk after Rodriguez threw
    him to the ground. Castillo argues that the evidence supports a finding that Jimenez’s cause of
    death was the blunt force trauma he sustained after Rodriguez threw him to the ground, which he
    had no part of, and not the beating. But Castillo again improperly draws an inference from the
    13
    1-15-3147
    evidence in the light most favorable to himself and not the State. 
    Id.
     And a trial court is not
    required to disregard inferences that flow normally from the evidence or seek out all possible
    explanations consistent with innocence and raise those explanations to a level of reasonable
    doubt. People v. Hardman, 
    2017 IL 121453
    , ¶ 37; In re Jonathon C.B., 
    2011 IL 107750
    , ¶ 60;
    In re Omar F., 
    2017 IL App (1st) 171073
    , ¶ 38; People v. Murphy, 
    2017 IL App (1st) 142092
    ,
    ¶ 11. In any event, whether Jimenez was unconscious before or after the beating does not alter
    the fact that he and Rodriguez beat Jimenez as he lay motionless on the ground, including
    kicking him in the head, knowing their conduct created a strong probability of death or great
    bodily harm.
    ¶ 34          Likewise, the lack of extensive external injuries cannot reduce Castillo’s conduct from
    knowing to reckless. See People v. Bishop, 
    218 Ill. 2d 232
    , 250 (2006); People v. Johnson, 
    2015 IL App (1st) 123249
    , ¶ 31 (an injury may be inferred based upon circumstantial evidence in light
    of common experience). Castillo completely discredits the readily accepted notion that internal
    injuries can be just as lethal as external injuries, perhaps even more so. And the medical evidence
    was clear that Jimenez suffered severe brain injuries from the beating. Even though no external
    wounds were noted on the emergency room report, Crejan saw blood on Rodriguez’s clothes
    immediately after the beating, and Officer Striegel saw blood on Jimenez’s head, face, and body
    when he arrived at the scene, which gives rise to the reasonable inference that Jimenez visibly
    bled from the beating. Moreover, even after Castillo saw Rodriguez grab and throw Jimenez to
    the ground and start kicking him in the head, he decided to join in the beating by punching
    Jimenez in the abdomen and kicking him, stopping only when he noticed that Jimenez was not
    moving. Because Castillo stopped beating Jimenez when he noticed Jimenez was not moving,
    the reasonable inference was that Castillo knew Jimenez suffered grave injuries and there was no
    need to continue beating him, as the objective to inflict serious bodily harm or death had been
    14
    1-15-3147
    achieved.
    ¶ 35           Castillo similarly argues that the trial court misconstrued the evidence in the record when
    it stated that the beating lasted two minutes even though Denis was unsure if the beating lasted
    over a minute. Regardless of whether the beating lasted one minute or two, the scenario here was
    not a one-on-one fight but two individuals simultaneously delivering repeated blows to another
    who lay facedown on the sidewalk not fighting back or moving. Under this scenario, it cannot be
    reasonably disputed that Castillo knew his conduct would cause great bodily harm or death.
    Moreover, duration of the beating is generally a factor 2 courts consider when deciding whether a
    defendant’s conduct was reckless, but consideration of that factor is not dispositive where, as
    here, the nature of the killing, shown by either multiple wounds or the victim’s defenselessness,
    demonstrated that the defendant did not act recklessly. DiVincenzo, 
    183 Ill. 2d at 251
    .
    ¶ 36           Castillo further contends that the trial court misapplied the required mental state in
    finding knowing first degree murder as demonstrated by its comment that “I can fully appreciate
    this probably took place whatever the duration was, before Mr. Castillo and Mr. Rodriguez could
    think it through. And not thinking things through is part of what’s criminal.” Castillo interprets
    the trial court’s comment to mean that he acted recklessly by “not thinking things through.” But
    Castillo misconstrues the trial court’s statement and reads it in isolation. The trial court
    continued by stating that Castillo’s conduct in kicking Jimenez “was the result of purposeful
    actions [engineered] by an intent to inflict great bodily harm. Which is precisely what 9-1(a)(2)
    of the criminal code [(knowing murder)] *** speaks to.” When the trial court’s findings are read
    in totality, it is clear that the court had in mind the required mental state for knowing first degree
    murder and correctly determined that Castillo did not act recklessly. And there is no merit to
    2
    The factors courts generally consider when deciding whether a defendant’s conduct was reckless
    include (i) the disparity in size between the defendant and the victim, (ii) the brutality and duration of the
    beating, and the severity of the victim’s injuries, and (iii) whether the defendant used his or her bare fists
    or a weapon. DiVincenzo, 
    183 Ill. 2d at 251
    .
    15
    1-15-3147
    Castillo’s claim that he and Rodriguez were teenagers (19 and 17 years old, respectively)
    provoked by 34-year-old Jimenez when Jimenez started throwing up gang signs and got
    dangerously close to them. Mere words and gestures are insufficient to constitute serious
    provocation. People v. Blackwell, 
    171 Ill. 2d 338
    , 358 (1996); People v. Camacho, 
    2016 IL App (1st) 140604
    , ¶ 37.
    ¶ 37          Castillo faults the State for not distinguishing People v. Lengyel, 
    2015 IL App (1st) 131022
    , and People v. Jones, 
    404 Ill. App. 3d 734
     (2010), which he cited as support for finding
    his conduct was reckless and not knowing. But the State considered Castillo’s reliance on those
    cases misplaced because, unlike here, the medical evidence in Lengyel and Jones showed that the
    beatings were not the cause of death, and the defendants could not have known that their conduct
    would have resulted in death. We agree with the State that Lengyel and Jones provide no support
    for Castillo’s claim that his conduct was merely reckless. See Lengyel, 
    2015 IL App (1st) 131022
    , ¶¶ 27, 64 (blunt force trauma to victim’s head was not the definitive cause of the
    victim’s death, and the defendant acted recklessly when he disregarded the risk that his punches
    could spike victim’s blood pressure leading to a stroke and death); Jones, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 747
    (injuries from the fight not the cause of victim’s death, and a lay person would not know that
    placing a foot on the soft tissue area of the neck applying 4.4 pounds of pressure to hold the
    victim down would lead to death).
    ¶ 38          In sum, the nature of the injuries that led to Jimenez’s death belies any suggestion that
    Castillo’s actions were reckless and not knowing, and the evidence demonstrating Castillo’s
    knowing conduct was not so improbable, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive as to leave a reasonable
    doubt regarding his guilt. Consequently, the evidence was sufficient to prove Castillo guilty
    beyond a reasonable doubt of first degree murder.
    ¶ 39          Castillo also claims that the trial court improperly considered Rodriguez’s incriminating
    16
    1-15-3147
    statement, repeated by Crejan, that Rodriguez and Castillo “stomped” Jimenez and used that
    statement against Castillo to find that he knowingly committed first degree murder.
    ¶ 40           Castillo concedes that he forfeited review of this claim of error, but he urges review of
    his unpreserved claim under the plain error doctrine. The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing
    court to consider an unpreserved error when a clear and obvious error has occurred and either
    (i) the evidence was closely balanced or (ii) the error was so serious that it affected the fairness
    of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process. People v. Staake,
    
    2017 IL 121755
    , ¶ 31 (citing People v. Piatkowski, 
    225 Ill. 2d 551
    , 565 (2007), citing People v.
    Herron, 215 Il. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005)). But the predicate to a plain error analysis is the finding
    that an error occurred. Id. ¶ 33; People v. Walker, 
    232 Ill. 2d 113
    , 124 (2009); People v. Space,
    
    2018 IL App (1st) 150922
    , ¶ 63. We need not engage in a plain error analysis here because no
    error occurred.
    ¶ 41	          Castillo’s and Rodriguez’s basis for seeking severance was a Bruton violation. See
    Bruton v. United States, 
    391 U.S. 123
    , 135-36 (1968). During a joint trial, Bruton prohibits the
    prosecution’s use of a statement made by a nontestifying codefendant that expressly implicates
    the other defendant in the crime. People v. Ousley, 
    235 Ill. 2d 299
    , 303 (2009) (citing Bruton,
    
    391 U.S. at 137
    ). Importantly, Bruton involved a jury, and not a bench trial, and a jury “cannot
    be expected to consider an inculpatory statement in determining the guilt or innocence of the
    declarant, then ignore that statement in determining the guilt or innocence of the declarant’s
    codefendants.” Id. at 310. But the same cannot be said in a bench trial where the presumption
    exists that a judge has considered only competent and proper evidence. People v. Schmitt, 
    131 Ill. 2d 128
    , 138 (1989). Indeed, when a judge in a bench trial is confronted with an incriminating
    statement by one codefendant in a separate but simultaneous bench trial, the court is presumed
    “capable of compartmentalizing its consideration of evidence.” 
    Id. at 137
    .
    17
    1-15-3147
    ¶ 42          There is no basis here to find that the experienced trial judge improperly considered
    Rodriguez’s incriminating statement against Castillo. When the trial court granted the severance,
    it clearly articulated that it would hear the cases simultaneously “but will of course be cognizant
    of what evidence is properly admissible against each defendant and which evidence is not
    admissible against each defendant.” The trial court’s ability to compartmentalize its
    consideration of the evidence was demonstrated when it repeatedly stated that each defendant’s
    incriminating statements would not be used against the other. Likewise, the trial court
    specifically asked Castillo’s attorney whether Crejan’s stipulation would be admitted against
    Castillo, which further demonstrated its ability to separate the evidence. We refuse to presume
    that the trial judge simply forgot during Castillo’s trial, which spanned over portions of three
    days, that he was conducting a separate but simultaneous trial, particularly given his and the
    State’s repeated acknowledgement that certain evidence was only admissible against one
    defendant but not the other.
    ¶ 43          Contrary to Castillo’s assertion, the trial court did not explicitly state that it considered
    Crejan’s inadmissible statement as a basis to find Castillo guilty of first degree murder. See
    People v. Williams, 
    246 Ill. App. 3d 1025
    , 1033 (1993) (if the trial court explicitly states that it
    will not consider inadmissible evidence in a joint trial, and the record supports the judge’s
    admonition, the defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial must fail). Based on the record,
    the trial court’s ultimate characterization of Castillo’s conduct as “stomping” Jimenez was a fair
    characterization of the evidence. The mere fact that Rodriguez’s statement to Crejan used the
    same relatively common word does not, standing alone, support the inference that the trial court
    considered this statement against Castillo. Consequently, nothing in the record demonstrates that
    the trial court improperly relied upon the inadmissible incriminating statement to find Castillo
    guilty of knowing first degree murder. Because there was no error, there can be no plain error.
    18
    1-15-
    3147 Walker, 232
     Ill. 2d at 124; People v. Smith, 
    372 Ill. App. 3d 179
    , 181 (2007). Castillo’s related
    claim that his trial counsel was ineffective because she did not object to the trial court’s alleged
    consideration of Rodriguez’s statement fails for the same reason. People v. Polk, 
    2014 IL App (1st) 122017
    , ¶ 29.
    ¶ 44          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Castillo’s conviction for first degree murder.
    ¶ 45          Affirmed.
    19