Id. What the victim did to treat the injuries is irrelevant. See People v. Milligan, 327 Ill.App.3d 264, 267, 261 Ill.Dec. 940, 764 N.E.2d 555 (2002). ¶ 14 Although defendant addresses the issue as one of statutory interpretation and asks this court to find a lack of great bodily harm as a matter of law, whether a victim's injuries rise to the level of great bodily harm is a question of fact. Figures, 216 Ill.App.3d at 401, 160 Ill.Dec. 135, 576 N.E.2d 1089.
Id. What the victim did to treat the injuries is irrelevant. See People v. Milligan, 327 Ill. App. 3d 264, 267 (2002). ¶ 14 Although defendant addresses the issue as one of statutory interpretation and asks this court to find a lack of great bodily harm as a matter of law, whether a victim's injuries rise to the level of great bodily harm is a question of fact. Figures, 216 Ill. App. 3d at 401.
Id. at 279-80. A defendant's conviction will not be overturned" 'unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt.'" People v. Vannote, 2012 IL App (4th) 100798, ¶ 47 (quoting People v. Milligan, 327 Ill.App.3d 264, 267 (2002)).
When testimony or evidence is elicited by defense counsel under direct examination without the purpose of impeaching the witness, the concerns associated with the mere-fact method of impeachment are inapplicable. See People v. Milligan, 327 Ill. App. 3d 264, 269, 764 N.E.2d 555, 560 (2002) (quoting People v. Hester, 271 Ill. App. 3d 954, 959, 649 N.E.2d 1351, 1356-57 (1995) ("If evidence of the prior conviction is admissible independently of impeachment purposes—and therefore independent of Montgomery—then the Montgomery test becomes inapposite." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); see also People v. Williams, 317 Ill. App. 3d 945, 950, 742 N.E.2d 774, 779 (2000) (finding the use of the defendant's prior conviction was not "offered by the State to impeach defendant but by the defense to explain why
¶ 75 In this instance, we find that plain-error review is not available to defendant because he affirmatively acquiesced to the admission of the daytime photographs of Bickford. "Generally, a defendant may not complain of error which he invited or in which he acquiesced." People v. Milligan, 327 Ill. App. 3d 264, 269, 764 N.E.2d 555, 559 (2002). Additionally, plain-error review applies only "to cases involving procedural default, not affirmative acquiescence."
Because the defendant disclosed the existence of his convictions on direct examination, the trial court was not called upon to conduct this balancing test. People v. Milligan, 327 Ill. App. 3d 264, 269 (2002). However, if it had been done, the factors bearing on the trial court's consideration may have included (1) whether the prior convictions were for offenses related to veracity, (2) the circumstances surrounding them, (3) how recent they were, (4) the defendant's conduct subsequent to them, (5) the extent of the defendant's criminal record, (6) whether the crimes were similar to that for which the defendant is on trial, (7) the need for the defendant's testimony and the likelihood he would forego his opportunity to testify, and (8) whether the defendant's credibility as a witness was central to the determination of the truth.
Moreover, photographs depicting a victim with bruises under her eyes, back, and arm, and scratches or cuts on her throat and on one leg have been sufficient corroboration to uphold a finding of great bodily harm. People v. Milligan, 327 Ill. App. 3d 264, 267 (2002).¶ 47 We are also unpersuaded by defendant's reliance on In re J.A., 336 Ill. App. 3d 814 (2003), and In re T.G., 285 Ill. App. 3d 838 (1996).
Because those convictions were not offered by the State to impeach defendant but rather elicited by defense counsel on direct examination, the Montgomery balancing test did not apply. People v. Milligan, 327 Ill. App. 3d 264, 269 (2002). Once defendant opened the door by testifying as to some of his prior convictions, it was proper for the State to ask about additional convictions on cross-examination.
Photos depicting a victim with bruises under her eyes, back, and one arm, and scratches or cuts on her throat and on one leg have been sufficient corroboration to uphold a finding of great bodily harm. People v. Milligan, 327 Ill. App. 3d 264, 267 (2002). ¶ 20 The State asserts that People v. Matthews, 126 Ill. App. 3d 710 (1984) is instructive where a conviction for aggravated battery was affirmed on the basis that a victim had sustained great bodily harm.
A court of review will not overturn the verdict of the fact finder “unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt.” People v. Milligan, 327 Ill.App.3d 264, 267, 261 Ill.Dec. 940, 764 N.E.2d 555, 558 (2002). ¶ 48 Defendant argues the State failed to establish defendant touched K.S. for the purpose of sexual gratification.