People v. Gonzalez

• Decision Date: 22 February 1991
• Docket Number: No. 69372,69372
• Citation: 568 N.E.2d 864,154 Ill.Dec. 643,142 Ill.2d 481
• Parties: , 154 Ill.Dec. 643 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Freddie GONZALEZ, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 864

568 N.E.2d 864

142 Ill.2d 481, 154 Ill.Dec. 643

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v.Freddie GONZALEZ, Appellee.

No. 69372.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 22, 1991.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Cecil A. Partee, State's Atty., Chicago (Terence M. Madsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, and Inge Fryklund, Walter P. Hehner and Renee Goldfarb, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.

Randolph N. Stone, Public Defender, Chicago (Ronald P. Alwin, Asst. Defender, of counsel, and Caroline J. Smith, law student), for appellee.

Chief Justice MILLERdelivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the defendant, Freddie Gonzalez, was convicted of robbery and aggravated battery, violations of sections 18-1and12-4(b)(8), respectively, of the Criminal Code of 1961(Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, pars. 12-4(b)(8), 18-1).The defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 4 1/2 years' imprisonment for the offenses.The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, reversed the defendant's convictions and remanded the cause for a new trial.(188 Ill.App.3d 559, 136 Ill.Dec. 269, 544 N.E.2d 1044.)We allowed the State's petition for leave to appeal(107 Ill.2d R. 315(a)) and now reverse the judgment of the appellate court and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Before trial, the defendant made an oral motion in limine to exclude any testimony suggesting his involvement with street gangs.The trial judge ruled that such evidence would be admissible for the limited purpose of showing the circumstances leading to the defendant's identification as the offender and his subsequent arrest.

At trial, the victim, 17-year-old Jose Asia, testified that during the afternoon of September 4, 1986, he was riding his bicycle in the vicinity of 3100 West Belden in Chicago when he noticed a group of boys nearby.The victim knew that the youths were members of the Spanish Cobra street gang because he had previously lived in the neighborhood and on other occasions had heard them shout gang slogans to passers-by.The victim also testified that the youths were gathered in front of the gang's headquarters, a burned-out building that had the gang's symbols painted on it.

The victim was a short distance from the other youths when the defendant, who approached from behind, grabbed the handlebars of the bicycle.The defendant declared, "This is my bike," and threatened to hit the victim if he did not surrender the bicycle.When the victim failed to comply, the defendant punched the victim in the left eye and on the forehead.The defendant then took the bicycle and left.At trial, the victim estimated that his confrontation with the defendant lasted about one minute; he did not recall testifying at the preliminary hearing that the confrontation lasted 5 to 10 minutes.

The victim notified the police and provided a description of the age, height, weight, and clothing of the assailant, a male Hispanic.The victim also told police that he believed that the offender was a member of the Spanish Cobra street gang.The next day at the police station, the victim identified the defendant from an album containing photographs of 75 to 100 Spanish Cobra gang members.

The defendant was taken into custody several days later by police officer Daniel Noon, a gang crime investigator.Officer Noon testified that the defendant, at the time of his arrest, asked whether the officer was " 'looking for me for that robbery where I took that kid's bike[?]' "In subsequent questioning, the defendant again admitted to Noon that he had taken the victim's bicycle.The defendant said that he kept the bicycle for several days and then gave it to a member of another street gang.The defendant denied striking the victim.Officer Noon testified that he made a summary of the defendant's admissions but did not take a formal statement from the defendant.

At trial, the defendant challenged the reliability of the victim's identification of him as the offender.In support of that contention, the defendant presented the parties' stipulation that a court reporter would testify that during the preliminary hearing the victim described the confrontation as lasting 5 or 10 minutes.The defendant also presented the testimony of a police officer that the victim was hysterical following the confrontation and that the officer did not believe that the victim had told him the hair color and eye color of the offender.

The jury found the defendant guilty of robbery and aggravated battery, and the defendant appealed.A divided appellate court reversed the defendant's convictions and remanded the cause for a new trial.(188 Ill.App.3d 559, 136 Ill.Dec. 269, 544 N.E.2d 1044.)The majority determined that the evidence of street-gang activity was irrelevant and, furthermore, that certain comments about gangs made by the prosecutor in closing argument denied the defendant a fair trial.The dissenting justice believed that the evidence of gang affiliation was correctly admitted for its limited purpose, and that any error in the prosecution's closing argument was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.188 Ill.App.3d at 568-69, 136 Ill.Dec. 269, 544 N.E.2d 1044(Quinlan, J., dissenting).

We first consider whether the gang-related evidence was properly admitted for the limited purpose of showing the circumstances surrounding the victim's identification of the defendant, and the defendant's eventual arrest.Evidence is admissible if it is relevant to an issue in dispute and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.(People v. Eyler(1989), 133 Ill.2d 173, 218, 139 Ill.Dec. 756, 549 N.E.2d 268;People v. Monroe(1977), 66 Ill.2d 317, 322, 5 Ill.Dec. 824, 362 N.E.2d 295;see alsoPeople v. Hairston(1970), 46 Ill.2d 348 372, 263 N.E.2d 840(evidence of gang affiliation may be admissible if relevant).)Relevant evidence is defined as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.Eyler, 133 Ill.2d at 217, 139 Ill.Dec. 756, 549 N.E.2d 268;Monroe, 66 Ill.2d at 322, 5 Ill.Dec. 824, 362 N.E.2d 295.

At trial, the reliability of the victim's identification of the defendant as the offender was the central issue in the case.The accuracy of the victim's description of the assailant and the incident was certainly of consequence to this determination.To the extent that the gang-related evidence strengthened the victim's identification testimony, the evidence was relevant.SeePeople v. Washington(1984), 127 Ill.App.3d 365, 82 Ill.Dec. 505, 468 N.E.2d 1285(evidence of gang membership relevant as probative of the defendant's identification);People v. McMurray(1972), 6 Ill.App.3d 129, 134, 285 N.E.2d 242(same).

The challenged evidence was also relevant as part of the narrative describing the events leading to the defendant's identification and arrest.(SeePeople v. Johnson(1986), 114 Ill.2d 170, 194, 102 Ill.Dec. 342, 499 N.E.2d 1355;People v. Walls(1965), 33 Ill.2d 394, 397, 211 N.E.2d 699;People v. Marose(1957), 10 Ill.2d 340, 343, 139 N.E.2d 735.)In light of the victim's description of his assailant and the incident, the police produced a book containing photographs of Spanish Cobra gang members, from which the victim positively identified the defendant as his attacker.In this way the police narrowed the search for the offender.Within four days of the incident, Officer Noon, a gang crime investigator, was able to locate and arrest the defendant, who then confessed to having taken the victim's bicycle.The gang-related evidence was relevant to the jury's consideration of the steps in the investigation, and of the circumstances culminating in the defendant's arrest as the offender.

The defendant further asserts that whatever probative value the evidence had was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.In support of this contention, the defendant notes the widespread disapproval that exists toward street gangs.(SeePeople v. Parrott(1976), 40 Ill.App.3d 328, 331, 352 N.E.2d 299.)Although it is true that gangs are regarded with considerable disfavor, gang-related evidence will not necessarily be excluded if it is otherwise relevant and admissible.(People v. Hairston(1970), 46 Ill.2d 348, 372, 263 N.E.2d 840;People v. Anderson(1987), 153 Ill.App.3d 542, 549-50, 106 Ill.Dec. 512, 505 N.E.2d 1303;People v. Jackson(1986), 145 Ill.App.3d 626, 641, 99 Ill.Dec. 472, 495 N.E.2d 1207.)As the appellate court has noted, "An accused may not insulate the trier of fact from his gang membership where it is relevant to a determination of the case, simply because prejudice attaches to that revelation."People v. Rivera(1986), 145 Ill.App.3d 609, 618, 99 Ill.Dec. 353, 495 N.E.2d 1088.

It is the function of the trial court to weigh the probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence in determining whether it should be admitted.(Eyler, 133 Ill.2d at 218, 139 Ill.Dec. 756, 549 N.E.2d 268;People v. Shum(1988), 117 Ill.2d 317, 353, 111 Ill.Dec. 546, 512 N.E.2d 1183;People v. Greer(1980), 79 Ill.2d 103, 117, 37 Ill.Dec. 313, 402 N.E.2d 203.)In the present case, the trial judge acknowledged the potential prejudicial effect the evidence might have.The judge apparently believed, however, that the defendant's concerns were overstated.For example, the judge considered that the police book containing photographs of Spanish Cobra gang members was "a most fair identification book."The judge also noted that excluding evidence that the book contained only photographs of gang members could lead the jury to believe that the victim identified the defendant from a police book containing photographs of individuals with prior arrests.Emphasizing the balancing process involved, the judge determined that the...