People v. Romero

Decision Date05 April 1977
Docket NumberNo. 47974,47974
Citation362 N.E.2d 288,5 Ill.Dec. 817,66 Ill.2d 325
Parties, 5 Ill.Dec. 817 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Craig ROMERO et al., Appellees.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Howard L. Hood, State's Atty., Murphysboro (James B. Zagel, Jayne A. Carr, Stuart W. Opdycke, Asst. Attys. Gen., Charles D. Sheehy, Jr., Elgin, Bruce D. Irish and Raymond F. Buckley, Jr., of Ill. State's Attys. Assn., Mount Vernon, of counsel) for the People.

James Geis and Martin W. Carlson, of State Appellate Defender's Office, Chicago, for appellees.

THOMAS J. MORAN, Justice.

Following a jury trial, the defendants, Craig Romero and Michael McCrillis, were found guilty of burglary and theft. The Fifth District Appellate Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. 31 Ill.App.3d 704, 334 N.E.2d 305.

On the evening of October 27, 1972, the date of the burglary, the defendants were overnight guests in the Murphysboro home of Mr. and Mrs. Richard Potts. Don Reynolds, a friend of the Potts and a boarder in their four-room house, testified that the defendants left the house sometime after 6 p.m. Reynolds went out thereafter and returned at 10 p.m., at which time the defendants were not in the house. Reynolds went to bed, but was awakened around midnight by the defendants' return. He saw the defendants in possession of a color TV and a bag containing unidentified items, and overheard the defendants telling Potts that they had taken these items from a house down the street. During the next afternoon, Reynolds reported these events to a State trooper and verified for the police that the serial number on the color TV, still in the Potts' home, corresponded to that of the set stolen from the victims.

The trial court additionally permitted Reynolds and various police officers to testify to events which indicated defendants were involved in other offenses on the day following the subject burglary. This testimony was permitted at length during the State's case in chief, over repeated objections by defense counsel, and was admitted, on the State's theory, for the express and limited purposes of proving defendants' intent and design.

Briefly, Reynolds testified that, on the day following the burglary, he had accompanied Potts and the defendants on a trip to the town of Pinckneyville. He attested that the trip was instigated by the defendants and was for the purpose of locating a gun shop that would be easy to burglarize. While in Pinckneyville, the defendants purchased some rubber gloves. Not wanting to become involved in a criminal undertaking, Reynolds informed a State trooper of the previous night's burglary of the Murphysboro home and of the proposed burglary of the Pinckneyville gun shop.

A State trooper corroborated Reynolds' report of the offense and testified to having notified the Perry County police that two men were on their way to burglarize Manns Sport Shop. A Perry County police officer testified that he and another officer apprehended the defendants in the parking area behind Manns Sport Shop. He said that, when apprehended, one of the defendants had a homemade blackjack in his possession. In the trunk of defendant Romero's car, the arresting officer found a tire tool, jack and lug wrench, a tool to adjust brakes, a screwdriver, two pairs of rubber gloves, and a roll of tape. The officer stated that the defendants were charged with trespass and possession of burglary tools.

Defendants thereafter denied involvement in the burglary of the Murphysboro home. They indicated, inferentially, that Reynolds' testimony was prompted by an apparent grudge against Romero. On the evening of the subject burglary, Reynolds had waved a gun around during an argument and Romero had subdued him by punching Reynolds in the face and kicking the gun from his hand. They testified that it was Reynolds, not they, who formulated a plan to burglarize the gun shop and defendants merely went to the gun shop to prevent it at the urging of their host, Potts, who was a family man and did not want stolen goods brought into his home.

The jury was instructed that the evidence of defendants' subsequent offenses was to be considered only for the purposes of showing intent and design.

In the appellate court, the State for the first time advanced the additional theory that this evidence was admissible to enhance the credibility of its witness, Reynolds. The appellate court held that, because the subsequent offenses were dissimilar to the crime charged, evidence of those offenses was inadmissible to demonstrate intent or design but was, nonetheless, admissible under the State's 'credibility' theory according to the authority of People v. Cole (1963), 29 Ill.2d 501, 194 N.E.2d 269. The appellate court reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial because of the possibility of prejudice resulting from this type of evidence, and because the jury was erroneously instructed as to the purpose for which it could be considered.

During oral argument before this court, the State conceded that, under the facts, the appellate court was correct in holding the evidence of other offenses inadmissible to demonstrate intent or design. We agree. The State, however, went on to argue that the evidence was admissible to enhance the credibility of its witness, and for this proposition it relies on People v. Cole (1963), 29 Ill.2d 501, 194 N.E.2d 269. It further maintains that no reversible error occurred because of the jury instruction, and that any possible error relative thereto was waived.

The defendants argue that the evidence of other offenses was not admissible to enhance credibility; that evidence of specific instances of truthful conduct are not admissible to support the witness' testimony; and that it was error to characterize as burglary tools certain items found in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
115 cases
  • People v. Coleman
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 22, 1991
    ...50, 56; People v. Lindgren (1980), 79 Ill.2d 129, 137, 37 Ill.Dec. 348, 352, 402 N.E.2d 238, 242; People v. Romero (1977), 66 Ill.2d 325, 330, 5 Ill.Dec. 817, 819, 362 N.E.2d 288, 290.) The State is also barred from making closing arguments that are designed only to inflame a jury. (See Peo......
  • People v. Kimbrough
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 20, 1985
    ...to have committed the crime charged. People v. Lehman (1955), 5 Ill.2d 337, 342, 125 N.E.2d 506, 509; People v. Romero (1977), 66 Ill.2d 325, 330, 5 Ill.Dec. 817, 819, 362 N.E.2d 288, 290. However, evidence of other crimes is admissible if it is relevant for any purpose other than to show t......
  • People v. Burgin, 77-1886
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 25, 1979
    ...propensity to commit a crime. (People v. McDonald (1975), 62 Ill.2d 448, 455, 343 N.E.2d 489; see also People v. Romero (1977), 66 Ill.2d 325, 330, 5 Ill.Dec. 817, 362 N.E.2d 288.) Therefore, the evidence was proper if both crimes were " 'so nearly identical in method as to earmark them as ......
  • People v. Hunter
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 11, 1984
    ...true that evidence of offenses other than those for which a defendant is being tried is inadmissible (People v. Romero (1977), 66 Ill.2d 325, 5 Ill.Dec. 817, 362 N.E.2d 288); however, exceptions are made where that evidence is probative of motive, intent, identity, absence of mistake, or mo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT