The cases of Randle and Allison do not support the State's argument that the defendant's photograph, or his request for its return, were admissible to prove defendant's lack of moral character. The Illinois Supreme Court's decision in People v. Hendricks (1990), 137 Ill.2d 31, 560 N.E.2d 611, demonstrates that the challenged evidence was inadmissible for the purpose of proving defendant's lack of moral character. β’ 2 In Hendricks, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed the question of whether certain evidence regarding a defendant's past encounters with female models during his business activities was properly admissible against the defendant in his trial for the murder of his wife and children.
Dr. Witeck clearly possessed the specialized training and knowledge to render his opinion and the jury was entitled to credit it. In order to be admissible, an expert's opinion as to time of death need not be precise. For example, in People v. Hendricks, 145 Ill.App.3d 71, 99 Ill.Dec. 20, 495 N.E.2d 85 (1986), rev'd on other grounds,137 Ill.2d 31, 148 Ill.Dec. 213, 560 N.E.2d 611 (1990), the experts who testified estimated the victims' time of death based upon the contents of the child-victims' stomachs. The experts did not provide a precise time of death, but βposited a range * * * during which death occurred.β
A party's prior misconduct is not admissible for the purpose of establishing his or her bad character or propensity to commit illegal or immoral acts. People v. Hendricks, 137 Ill.2d 31, 52, 148 Ill.Dec. 213, 560 N.E.2d 611 (1990). ΒΆ 51 In the current matter, we determine that evidence regarding the events of July 2008 and May 2009 was admissible to impeach plaintiff's testimony that she had been sober since 2006.
The relevant question then is whether any rational trier of fact, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Collins, 106 Ill.2d at 261, 478 N.E.2d at 277; see also People v. Hendricks (1990), 137 Ill.2d 31, 62, 560 N.E.2d 611, 625.) We believe that standard has been met in this instance.
When faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, it is not this court's function to retry the defendant. ( People v. Hendricks (1990), 137 Ill.2d 31; People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill.2d 237, 261.) Rather, "the relevant question is whether, 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."
Thus, while 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 in situations not relevant here, "[s]uch evidence may also be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." Ill. R. Evid. 404(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011); see also, People v. Hendricks, 137 Ill. 2d 31, 53 (1990) ("Motive, although not an element of murder, may be a material factor at issue in establishing guilt, particularly when the only evidence is circumstantial."). "[W]hile any evidence which tends to show that an accused had a motive for killing the deceased is relevant, such evidence, to be competent, must at least to a slight degree tend to establish the existence of the motive relied on."
The court denied defense counsel's motion to strike the testimony as irrelevant, as the court held that the evidence related to Dukes's motive for killing Marilyn and Bridget.ΒΆ 48 Our supreme court stated the relevant principles in People v. Hendricks, 137 Ill. 2d 31 (1990):"It is well established that a defendant's prior misconduct is not admissible for the purpose of establishing his bad character or propensity to commit illegal or immoral acts, because the prejudicial impact of such evidence outstrips its negligible probative value. [Citation.] 'The inquiry is not rejected because character is irrelevant; on the contrary, it is said to weigh too much with the jury and to so overpersuade them as to prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity to defend against a particular charge.' [Citations.] Evidence of uncharged misconduct by the defendant undermines the presumption of innocence. [Citations.]
The court denied defense counsel's motion to strike the testimony as irrelevant, as the court held that the evidence related to Dukes's motive for killing Marilyn and Bridget.ΒΆ 48 Our supreme court stated the relevant principles in People v. Hendricks, 137 Ill. 2d 31 (1990):"It is well established that a defendant's prior misconduct is not admissible for the purpose of establishing his bad character or propensity to commit illegal or immoral acts, because the prejudicial impact of such evidence outstrips its negligible probative value. [Citation.] 'The inquiry is not rejected because character is irrelevant; on the contrary, it is said to weigh too much with the jury and to so overpersuade them as to prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity to defend against a particular charge.' [Citations.] Evidence of uncharged misconduct by the defendant undermines the presumption of innocence. [Citations.]
The effect of the photographs, the defendant urges, was to strongly persuade the jury that he was the type of person who would, in the absence of mental disease or defect, attempt to force a young boy to participate in his "fetish." The defendant relies upon the case of People v. Hendricks, 137 Ill. 2d 31, 560 N.E.2d 611 (1990), in support of his argument. In Hendricks, the supreme court ruled that evidence of the defendant's prior acts, which was intended to prove an intent to commit murder, was not sufficiently linked to the offense and was not used for the purpose the prosecution stated.
Defendant contends the trial court should have granted his motions for a directed verdict and for acquittal notwithstanding the verdict because no rational jury would have believed that Hansing could identify him as the robber by his memory of a fleeting glimpse at the robber's eyes. As the State says, we look at all of the evidence (not just Hansing's in-court identification) in a light most favorable to the State (see People v. Turner, 127 Ill. App. 3d 784, 790, 469 N.E.2d 368, 372 (1984)), asking "`whether a reasonable mind could fairly conclude the guilt of the accused'" ( People v. Hendricks, 137 Ill. 2d 31, 63, 560 N.E.2d 611, 625 (1990), quoting People v. Withers, 87 Ill. 2d 224, 230, 429 N.E.2d 853, 856 (1981)). Because a motion for an acquittal notwithstanding the verdict seeks essentially the same relief as a motion for a directed verdict ( People v. Rey, 136 Ill. App. 3d 645, 650, 483 N.E.2d 982, 986 (1985)), the same standard of review applies to both motions ( People v. Carter, 306 Ill. App. 3d 867, 872, 715 N.E.2d 1196, 1199 (1999), rev'd on other grounds, 194 Ill. 2d 88, 741 N.E.2d 255 (2000)).