We note that the results reached by the appellate court have been in conflict on the question whether the monetary credit is available to a defendant whose fine under the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act was imposed before the effective date of Public Act 84-826. Compare People v. Garrison (5th Dist. 1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 592, and People v. Smith (2d Dist. 1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 797 (allowing credit), with People v. Williams (5th Dist. 1986), 142 Ill. App.3d 266 (denying credit). This court has held that an amendment to a statute may be a legislative attempt to clarify the meaning of the statute (see Bruni v. Department of Registration Education (1974), 59 Ill.2d 6); this court has also recognized that a statutory amendment gives rise to the presumption that the new legislation was intended to effect a change in the law as it formerly existed ( People ex rel. Gibson v. Cannon (1976), 65 Ill.2d 366, 373).
Other crimes evidence is inextricably intertwined with a charged offense when the evidence is "an integral and natural part" of the offense's commission. People v. Rutledge, 409 Ill. App. 3d 22, 25 (2011); see also People v. Garrison, 146 Ill. App. 3d 592, 593 (1986) (evidence that the defendant was armed with a handgun during the course of the charged burglary was inextricably intertwined with the same). Here, as the defendant notes on appeal, because he is not asserting an alibi defense, the exclusion of the evidence that he violated the conditions of his home detention has no impact on the State's ability to establish that he shot and killed Hayes during the course of an armed robbery.
¶ 64 The State, on the other hand, contends " '[e]vidence of other crimes is admissible if such evidence is intertwined with the offense charged.' " Harper, 251 Ill. App. 3d at 804, 623 N.E.2d at 777 (quoting People v. Garrison, 146 Ill. App. 3d 592, 593, 496 N.E.2d 535, 536 (1986)). The State asserts the evidence of the bathroom incident demonstrated the progression of "punishments" inflicted on D.B. in the form of various sexual behaviors that makes it intertwined with the charged offense, ranging from defendant forcing D.B. to lie naked on the bathroom floor, to taking nude photographs, and, finally, to the commission of sexual acts as a form of punishment.
For instance, evidence that an offender attempted to sell property recently stolen from another is relevant to prove that the offender intended to commit the prior robbery or burglary. People v. Garrison, 146 Ill. App.3d 592, 593-94, 496 N.E.2d 535 (1986). Furthermore, "[e]vidence of other crimes can be admissible if it is intertwined with the instant offense or where it relates to the events which occurred earlier in the evening which led to the charged offense."
( People v. Kimbrough (1985), 138 Ill. App.3d 481, 484-85, 485 N.E.2d 1292.) It is also relevant if such evidence is intertwined with the offense charged. ( People v. Garrison (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 592, 496 N.E.2d 535.) Further, it is also relevant in placing a defendant in proximity to the time and place of the offense.
In People v. Collette (1991), 217 Ill. App.3d 465, 472, 577 N.E.2d 550, 555, this court recently held as follows: "When facts concerning uncharged criminal conduct are all part of a continuing narrative which concerns the circumstances attending the entire transaction, they do not concern separate, distinct, and unconnected crimes. [Citation.] Evidence of other crimes is admissible `if such evidence is intertwined with the offense charged.' ( People v. Garrison (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 592, 593, 496 N.E.2d 535, 536.)" (See also People v. Lewis (1993), 243 Ill. App.3d 618, 625-26, 611 N.E.2d 1334, 1339 ("[e]vidence of other crimes can be admissible if it is intertwined with the instant offense or where it relates to the events which * * * led to the charged offense").)
( People v. Hayes (1990), 139 Ill.2d 89, 564 N.E.2d 803.) Evidence of other crimes can be admissible if it is intertwined with the instant offense or where it relates to the events which occurred earlier in the evening which led to the charged offense. ( People v. Garrison (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 592, 496 N.E.2d 535.) It is also relevant in placing a defendant in proximity to the time and place of the offense or to rebut a defendant's alibi. ( People v. Lee (1986), 151 Ill. App.3d 510, 502 N.E.2d 399.)
Evidence of other crimes is admissible "if such evidence is intertwined with the offense charged." ( People v. Garrison (1986), 146 Ill. App.3d 592, 593, 496 N.E.2d 535, 536.) In People v. Johnson (1979), 76 Ill. App.3d 147, 394 N.E.2d 919, testimony as to a shotgun blast fired through the door of a tavern immediately following a robbery was admissible as evidence of the continuous criminal action involved in the charged offense, armed robbery.