2026 IL App (4th) 250295
FILED
July 10, 2026
NO. 4-25-0295 Carla Bender
4th District Appellate
IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Winnebago County
BRANDON TAYLOR, )
Defendant-Appellant. ) No. 21CF961
)
) Honorable
) Debra D. Schafer,
Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Justices Zenoff and DeArmond concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 In May 2021, defendant, Brandon Taylor, was charged with first degree murder
(720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2020)). The charges generally alleged that on October 8, 2020,
defendant, Dory Delmar Love, Nakeithian Cortez Johnson, and Thomas Hawkins shot and killed
Tammy Gonzalez during the commission of a forcible felony—namely, home invasion (id. § 19-6(a)). The charges further alleged defendant was armed with a firearm during these crimes.
¶2 In February 2023, the trial court conducted defendant’s jury trial, and the jury found
defendant guilty of first degree murder. The court later sentenced defendant to 57 years in prison.
¶3 Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the trial testimony by the State’s DNA expert
lacked a proper foundation for her conclusion that one of the two male DNA profiles found on a
cigarette butt at the crime scene matched defendant’s DNA profile, (2) the State’s evidence was not sufficient to prove defendant guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and
(3) defendant’s 57-year sentence was excessive.
¶4 We disagree with all of defendant’s claims and affirm.
¶5 I. BACKGROUND
¶6 A. The Charges
¶7 In May 2021, the State initially charged defendant with first degree murder in a
criminal complaint (id. § 9-1(a)(1)). In July 2021, a grand jury indicted defendant, along with
codefendants Dory Delmar Love and Nakeithian Cortez Johnson, on the charge of first degree
murder. The charges generally alleged that on October 8, 2020, defendant, his codefendants, and
Thomas Hawkins shot and killed Tammy Gonzalez during the commission of a forcible felony—
namely, home invasion (id. § 19-6(a)). The indictment further alleged defendant was armed with
a firearm during the commission of the home invasion.
¶8 B. The Jury Trial
¶9 In February 2023, the trial court conducted defendant’s jury trial, and the State
presented the following evidence.
¶ 10 1. Ashley McCammond
¶ 11 Ashley McCammond testified that on October 8, 2020, she resided with her
boyfriend, Adan Ibarra, in their home at 1307 15th Avenue, in Rockford, Illinois. During the
early morning hours of October 8, 2020, McCammond and Ibarra were asleep in their bedroom
when three men wearing ski masks with eye and mouth cutouts forced entry into their home.
Upon entering McCammond’s bedroom, the intruders announced they were police officers, and
then one intruder immediately struck McCammond in the face with a revolver and ordered her to
lie flat on the bed. Another intruder struck Ibarra in the back of the head with a handgun.
-2-McCammond observed that at least two of the men were armed, specifically noting a revolver
and a 9-millimeter handgun.
¶ 12 The intruders then ransacked the house, searching for drugs and money, and used
their weapons to strike McCammond and Ibarra. McCammond was struck again on her eyebrow.
At some point, one of the intruders poured hot candle wax on McCammond and then struck her
on the right side of her face with the candleholder. McCammond was facedown and was hit
multiple times. That same intruder shoved an object into Ibarra’s rectum and threatened to rape
McCammond if Ibarra did not reveal where the drugs were located.
¶ 13 McCammond testified that one of the intruders asked Ibarra for a cigarette. After
Ibarra told the men where the cigarettes were located, the intruder smoked one and then shared it
with Ibarra.
¶ 14 The intruders eventually moved McCammond and Ibarra to the living room. They
tied up McCammond with an extension cord and ordered her not to look at them. When
McCammond called one of the men a derogatory name, the intruders mistakenly believed Ibarra
made the comment and repeatedly stomped on his back.
¶ 15 The intruders stole numerous items, including clothing, two televisions, a
PlayStation, DVDs, jewelry, McCammond’s purse, and the cremated ashes of her sister and her
dog. They also poured bleach on her clothing (ostensibly to destroy any possible DNA evidence).
¶ 16 Because the men failed to find a satisfactory amount of drugs, they held Ibarra at
gunpoint and forced him to text his drug supplier to come over. (The trial evidence identified the
supplier as Roger Garcia Fiebrantz, Gonzalez’s son.) The intruders also took McCammond’s cell
phone, after forcing her to provide the passcode.
¶ 17 After Ibarra contacted Fiebrantz, two of the intruders walked McCammond out to
-3-the detached garage, seated her in a chair, and covered her with a sheet. One intruder remained
inside the house with Ibarra while he cleaned blood from his face. The two men in the garage
eventually exited to the driveway.
¶ 18 McCammond testified that shortly thereafter, she heard a vehicle pull into the
driveway, heard “Tammy *** [say] something” (the record is unclear how McCammond knew
Gonzalez’s voice), and then heard “tires squeal out backward,” immediately followed by a single
gunshot. After the intruders fled the scene, McCammond went back inside, got dressed, and
walked to a nearby police station with Ibarra to report the incident. As a result of the attack,
McCammond suffered black eyes, a swollen face and nose, and a bruise by her right ear.
¶ 19 Regarding the subsequent investigation, McCammond testified that in February
2021, officers asked her to view photo lineups and she successfully identified Johnson as one of
the intruders. She also testified that she had known Love for a few years and had spoken with
him shortly before October 8, 2020, when she was driving home from work. During that
conversation, she told Love that she lived in a nearby apartment.
¶ 20 2. Roger Garcia Fiebrantz
¶ 21 Roger Garcia Fiebrantz testified he was the son of Gonzalez. Fiebrantz testified he
could not remember the events of October 8, 2020, because “it was a traumatizing situation” and
he had “been shot in the head” in an unrelated incident. The State asked Fiebrantz a series of
questions regarding the incident. Specifically, the State asked if Fiebrantz recalled (1) Ibarra
calling him to collect $200, (2) asking his mother to drive him to Ibarra’s house, and (3) a man
putting a gun in his face when they pulled into the garage. The State further asked if Fiebrantz
recalled his mother trying to save him, the man threatening to shoot, and his mother stating she
was hit and could not breathe. Fiebrantz testified he did not recall any of those events.
-4-¶ 22 Because Fiebrantz claimed a complete lack of memory on the witness stand, the
State introduced and published his video-recorded statement to the police, which was recorded the
morning of the shooting. Fiebrantz acknowledged he was the person in the video but maintained
he had no independent recollection of the statements he made.
¶ 23 In the video, Fiebrantz told the police that he went to Ibarra’s house around 4:30 or
5 a.m. Fiebrantz explained that he was at his house and called his mother for a ride. At his request,
Gonzalez drove Fiebrantz to Ibarra’s house and pulled into the driveway.
¶ 24 When they arrived, Ibarra came out of the house, approached the car’s window, and
handed Fiebrantz $200. Suddenly, a tall, skinny, dark-skinned Black man, wearing a face mask,
emerged and approached the passenger seat. The man pointed a gun directly in Fiebrantz’s face,
waved the firearm around, and threatened to shoot. In response, Fiebrantz attempted to give the
man everything he had on him, including the $200 he had just received.
¶ 25 Fiebrantz stated his mother tried to “save him.” As the man fired his weapon,
Gonzalez threw the car in reverse and attempted to drive away. Fiebrantz recalled hearing what he
believed were two shots. Gonzalez then told him that she had been hit and could not breathe.
Fiebrantz initially told her they needed to go to the hospital, thinking she was still able to drive.
However, he quickly realized he had to take over the wheel because she was swerving toward the
shoulder of the road. He then drove them to the hospital.
¶ 26 3. Thomas Hawkins
¶ 27 Thomas Hawkins testified that he was currently in federal custody for two charges
of robbery and was on federal probation in October 2020, after serving a 136-month prison
sentence for a 2008 conviction for interference with commerce by threat of violence. Hawkins
acknowledged he faced the possibility of additional penalties on his federal probation due to his
-5-involvement in the present case. However, he testified that in April 2021, he entered into a written
agreement with both state and federal authorities, under which he received full immunity from
prosecution for his role in the October 2020 home invasion and murder in exchange for his truthful
testimony.
¶ 28 Regarding the events of October 8, 2020, Hawkins testified that late the night
before, he met with (1) Dory Love, (2) a man he knew as Bo Lord, and (3) a man he knew as
“Lil B” at the apartment of Love’s girlfriend on 15th Avenue. Hawkins noted that he had known
Love his entire life, had known Lord for approximately a month through the mother of Hawkins’s
child, and had just met Lil B that night. Hawkins initially believed Lil B’s name was Brandon
Lambert, based on information from Love, but he later learned it was Brandon Taylor. At trial,
Hawkins identified defendant as the man he knew as Lil B.
¶ 29 Hawkins testified that Love organized a plan to rob a house located a block and a
half away because he believed drugs were inside. On October 8, 2020, Hawkins drove his truck to
the alley behind the targeted house. Because Love knew the residents and did not want his face
seen, he remained inside the truck. Hawkins, Lord, and defendant exited the vehicle, wearing black
gloves and ski masks that exposed only their eyes and mouths. Lord was armed with a 9-millimeter
Glock 19, and defendant was armed with a 9-millimeter handgun.
¶ 30 Hawkins testified that he and Lord helped defendant enter the house through a side
window and then Lord stood on Hawkins’s shoulders to climb inside. Lord and defendant then
unlocked the front door to let Hawkins in. Upon entering during the early morning hours, Hawkins
heard screaming from a man and a woman in the bedroom. The intruders ordered the couple to
stay on the bed. Defendant smacked the man in the head with his gun and poured a liquid over the
woman’s face.
-6-¶ 31 The men then ransacked the house looking for drugs and money, ultimately finding
approximately 14 grams of cocaine. Hawkins testified that he temporarily held Lord’s handgun
while Lord carried stolen items, including televisions, electronics, jewelry, and a pit bull puppy,
out to Hawkins’s vehicle.
¶ 32 Because the intruders did not find as much money or drugs as they expected, they
moved the couple into the living room and tied them up with an orange extension cord. Hawkins
testified that (1) he, Lord, and defendant all threatened to beat the man further if he did not comply
with their demands and (2) defendant assaulted the man by inserting an object into his rectum.
They demanded the man contact his drug supplier and lure him to the house so they could rob him.
The man eventually texted his supplier, who agreed to come over.
¶ 33 While waiting, Lord poured bleach throughout the house in an attempt to destroy
DNA evidence. The men then formed an ambush plan. Defendant remained inside the house with
the male resident, while Hawkins, Lord, and the female resident went into the detached garage.
The plan was for defendant to allow the male resident to walk out to the supplier’s vehicle, at
which point Hawkins and Lord would emerge from the garage to commit the robbery. Because he
did not have a gun, Hawkins retrieved a green crowbar from his truck and concealed it in his
sweater sleeve.
¶ 34 When the supplier’s vehicle arrived, the male resident walked toward the passenger
side, prompting Hawkins and Lord to exit the garage. Hawkins approached the driver’s side and
attempted to smash the window with the crowbar, but the glass did not break. He then heard Lord
tussling with someone on the passenger side. Lord ran to the front of the vehicle and yelled that an
occupant had a gun, though Hawkins testified he never saw a firearm. Lord then fired a single shot
into the vehicle. The vehicle slowly reversed before going into drive and speeding away.
-7-¶ 35 Hawkins, Lord, and defendant then ran back to Hawkins’s truck and fled. Love
drove the vehicle erratically and almost hit a light pole because he had been drinking in the truck
during the home invasion. This prompted Hawkins to take over driving. He drove the group to his
child’s mother’s house. Later that day, Hawkins saw a news alert on his phone, showing yellow
police tape around the targeted house, and he realized someone had been killed.
¶ 36 Hawkins testified that the group subsequently disposed of the stolen items. Love
had already taken it upon himself to hide some of the property behind a bus station and nearby
factories. However, because Hawkins, Lord, and defendant objected to Love’s being the only one
who knew the location of these items, Hawkins, Lord, and defendant retrieved them to dispose of
them together. Using bolt cutters, they cut a lock near the Rockford Register Star building and
threw the televisions into the Rock River. They dumped the remaining items, including clothing
and Lord’s handgun, in a wooded area near “dead man’s curve,” which was located between the
west and south sides of Rockford. Hawkins later sold one of the stolen cell phones at an automated
kiosk at Walmart.
¶ 37 Regarding the police investigation, Hawkins testified that in February 2021,
detectives approached him because they discovered he had sold the stolen phone. Afraid of getting
in trouble, Hawkins did not disclose his involvement in the home invasion. Instead, in an attempt
to gain favor, he provided Detective Fitzgerald with information regarding an unrelated murder.
¶ 38 In April 2021, after securing his immunity agreement, Hawkins provided a full
statement detailing the home invasion. During this interview, the police officers showed Hawkins
single photographs of Love and Lord, which he identified, labeled with their names, initialed, and
dated. The officers also showed Hawkins a photo lineup containing an individual named Brandon
Lambert, but Hawkins did not identify anyone.
-8-¶ 39 Later that month, police officers showed Hawkins a new photo lineup, and Hawkins
identified defendant from this lineup and circled his photograph. Hawkins also provided the
officers with the location where the group disposed of the evidence near “dead man’s curve,”
which he identified on a map. This information led officers to recover all the items dumped there
except for Lord’s handgun.
¶ 40 4. Law Enforcement Witnesses
¶ 41 In the early morning of October 8, 2020, Officer DaCoda VanVleet met with
McCammond and transported her to the police station. VanVleet observed that McCammond had
facial injuries and several white spots on her face and collar, which appeared to be dried candle
wax.
¶ 42 Another officer met with Fiebrantz at the hospital and transported him to the police
station for questioning. Detective Fitzgerald later interviewed Fiebrantz with Detective Mace at
the District 2 police building, and they recorded the interview.
¶ 43 During the crime scene investigation at 1307 15th Avenue, Officer Andrew
Thompson recovered a spent 9-millimeter Luger cartridge case outside the residence. Inside the
home, officers recovered a smoked cigarette butt from the kitchen, which they submitted for DNA
testing. Officers later obtained a buccal swab from defendant to allow the Illinois State Police
Forensic Science Laboratory to compare his DNA to DNA found on the cigarette butt.
¶ 44 As the investigation progressed, Fitzgerald developed multiple suspects. In
February 2021, Fitzgerald compiled two photo lineups for McCammond to view. McCammond
identified Johnson from one of the two photo lineups, circling his photograph and signing and
dating the document.
¶ 45 Fitzgerald also spoke with Hawkins once in February 2021 and twice in April 2021.
-9-On April 7, 2021, Hawkins provided a recorded statement detailing the incident in the presence of
Fitzgerald and attorneys for both Hawkins and the government. During this interview, Fitzgerald
showed Hawkins single photographs of Love and Johnson, and Hawkins identified both men,
writing their respective street names, “D Love” and “Bo Lord,” on the photos.
¶ 46 Hawkins also provided information regarding the location where the intruders
disposed of items from the home invasion. Fitzgerald showed Hawkins a satellite map of the area
around Curve Street and South Avon Street on the southwest side of Rockford, and Hawkins
pinpointed the exact location on the map. This information led police officers to recover the items
from that location, and that map was admitted into evidence.
¶ 47 Also, during the April 7 interview, Hawkins stated that an individual named
Brandon participated in the offense, indicating he believed the man’s last name was Lambert.
Based on this information, Fitzgerald created a photo lineup containing an individual named
Brandon Lambert, but Hawkins did not identify anyone from that group.
¶ 48 Fitzgerald conducted further investigation and met with Hawkins again on April
15, 2021, with a new photo lineup that included defendant. Hawkins identified defendant from this
lineup as a participant in the October 2020 home invasion and murder.
¶ 49 The forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy on Gonzalez testified that she
died of a single gunshot wound to the chest.
¶ 50 5. Heather May
¶ 51 Heather May, a forensic scientist in the biology and DNA section of the Illinois
State Police Forensic Science Laboratory in Rockford, testified, without objection, as an expert in
forensic biology and DNA analysis. She stated her duties included conducting DNA testing on
criminal evidence, interpreting results, and issuing reports. May had a bachelor’s degree in
- 10 -genetics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a master’s degree in forensic science from
the University of Illinois Chicago. She completed specialized training through the Illinois State
Police, including practical, written, and oral examinations.
¶ 52 May explained that DNA is unique to every person, except identical siblings, and
remains the same throughout a person’s life and across all body tissues. Although red blood cells
do not contain DNA, she noted analysts can still generate a DNA profile from blood, using other
components like white blood cells. May explained that although extreme exposure to chemicals,
such as bleach or ultraviolet light from the sun, can weaken or destroy DNA and make it difficult
to detect, such exposure will not alter a DNA profile to look like someone else’s profile.
¶ 53 May outlined her testing process and contamination prevention measures, which
included wearing protective gear, cleaning her workspace with bleach, and using positive and
negative controls. Describing her specific methods, May stated the following:
“The first step is called extraction. And during that step, I separate the DNA from
the item of evidence. The second step is called quantitation. And during that step, I
figure out how much DNA I actually have from that evidence sample. The third
step is amplification. And during that step, I make many copies of the specific areas
of the DNA that I’m interested in ***. And then the fourth step of the process is
where I will generate the DNA profile and then interpret the results and make any
comparisons in the case.”
¶ 54 May further detailed her procedure after she generates a DNA profile, explaining
as follows:
“So, once I have the profile after I’ve interpreted it—interpretation would involve
looking at it to see if it’s even suitable to be compared to known reference samples
- 11 -and then determining how many people might be contributing their DNA to that
evidence sample. So, once I’ve established those factors, if it’s even suitable and
how many people might be contributing to the item, then I’ll compare it to any
known reference samples that I have from any individuals related to the case.”
¶ 55 May testified she received the cigarette butt recovered from the scene and a known
buccal swab reference sample collected from defendant. She performed DNA testing on both items
and developed DNA profiles. May explained that because more than one person contributed DNA
to the cigarette butt, it contained a “mixture of different DNA signals or patterns together.”
Specifically, she determined the cigarette butt contained a mixture of DNA from two male
contributors.
¶ 56 May compared defendant’s known DNA profile to the evidence profile and
concluded that defendant “was included as a potential contributor to the mixture of DNA profiles
on the cigarette butt.” Explaining her specific terminology, May testified, “We don’t use phrases
like ‘match’ or ‘does not match’ anymore. *** ‘[I]ncluded’ means that everything is consistent
and nothing is inconsistent.” Because defendant was included as a contributor, May calculated the
statistical frequency of the mixture to be no more common than 1 in 3.2 billion unrelated
individuals.
¶ 57 May then testified that she searched the mixture of DNA profiles from the cigarette
butt in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a national database containing profiles from
crime scenes, convicted offenders, and missing persons used to aid criminal investigations. She
stated that the CODIS search returned an association to Ibarra. Although she did not receive a
reference sample from Ibarra to confirm the association, May noted the association was “valid for
*** investigative follow up by the agency.”
- 12 -¶ 58 On cross-examination, May acknowledged she cannot determine the specific time
frame when DNA was deposited on an item, agreeing it is possible for a mixture to result from
two individuals contacting the same item at completely separate times. She reiterated that
chemicals, like the bleach she used to clean her workspace, as well as ultraviolet light, can destroy
DNA and hinder profile detection.
¶ 59 After the State rested, defendant did not present any evidence.
¶ 60 Following closing arguments, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree
murder.
¶ 61 C. Sentencing
¶ 62 In February 2025, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. At the onset of
the hearing, the court noted it had received a presentence investigation report (PSI) and asked the
parties if they had any changes to make. The State noted defendant had a pending murder case but
stated it would not present evidence regarding that offense. The court stated it would not consider
that case unless evidence concerning it was presented, but none was.
¶ 63 Attached to the PSI were victim impact statements, which the State read into the
record. McCammond provided a statement detailing the severe physical and emotional trauma,
indescribable fear, and helplessness she endured during the home invasion. Alexia Gonzalez, the
victim’s daughter, provided a statement recounting the trauma of gathering at the hospital on the
morning of the murder. She emphasized that because her family was forced to endure a lifelong
punishment of living without her mother, defendant should similarly be punished for the rest of
his life.
¶ 64 The PSI showed that defendant had a lengthy criminal history. His adult record
included two Class 4 felony convictions in 2015 for domestic battery and aggravated fleeing to
- 13 -elude, as well as multiple misdemeanor convictions, including a 2014 criminal trespass to a
building, a 2013 criminal trespass to a residence, a 2012 theft, and a 2010 Class A domestic battery.
Defendant’s juvenile record included a 2009 residential burglary, a 2009 possession of cannabis
with intent to deliver, a 2006 retail theft, and two counts of criminal defacement of property in
2006.
¶ 65 In mitigation, defense counsel submitted written statements from defendant’s
family members. Finally, defendant gave a statement in allocution, expressing sorrow for the
victim’s family but maintaining he was innocent of the murder.
¶ 66 After a brief recess, the trial court issued its sentencing decision. The court stated
it fully considered the trial evidence; the PSI; defendant’s history, character, and attitude; the
arguments and statement in allocution; and all applicable statutory factors in aggravation and
mitigation. The court noted that although the State argued no mitigating factors applied, one factor
did apply—namely, “that he is a parent and he has children who would be negatively affected by
that parent’s absence.” The court stated that it was “mindful of the fact that there are a number of
children who are going to be growing up without their father present.”
¶ 67 The trial court then discussed defendant’s rehabilitative potential and the nature of
the offense, stating as follows:
“As far as factors—the other factors in mitigation, [defense counsel] didn’t
point to ones in particular but talked about [defendant] having rehabilitative
potential, which is, of course, what factors in mitigation relate to.
Many of the factors in mitigation would relate to things, like if I’m
considering probation, whether someone’s likely to comply with a term of
probation, and that’s not an option here. So, specifically, as enumerated, there are
- 14 -no factors—other factors in mitigation, but I’ll talk further about the potential in a
little bit.
For factors in aggravation, this is a circumstance where I can consider that
the defendant’s conduct caused or threatened serious harm, not in terms of to
Tammy Gonzalez—that, of course, is part of the murder case—but in terms of the
actions that preceded the death of Ms. Gonzalez. Circumstances of bringing Mr.
Garcia Fiebrantz to the home and, before that, the home invasion that was taking
place where Mr. Ibarra and Ms. McCammond were victims.
Ms. McCammond testified at trial concerning the really horrific nature of
this, where you wake up and find masked people in your home beating you, beating
your companion, and more. Stealing things from you and that not being enough and
getting more people involved because of greed.
Ms. McCammond testified that she was injured. Mr. Ibarra never testified
in the case, but some evidence was received concerning that. This was a home
invasion, and it certainly can be considered to have caused or threatened serious
harm.
The defendant does have a history of prior delinquency or criminal activity.
That was laid out by the State in their argument concerning his juvenile history, as
well as his adult history, prior involvement with the court system. And that is
significant and the Court is considering that, as well as—and this applies in every
case—that a sentence is necessary to deter others from committing the same crime.
That’s certainly true.
This is the second sentencing. It was the third—well, the second trial, but
- 15 -I’ve had three trials relating to the facts of this case. It is the second sentencing that
I’m participating in.
None of it changes my thought of how senseless it is that somebody wanting
what somebody else has and they get together with their friends or associates and
break into someone’s house to take it by force from somebody else and, when that’s
not enough, calling to compound the circumstances by getting an alleged drug
dealer to come over and steal from him, rob him. And, of course, we know from
the trial where things went south.
I do recognize, as [defense counsel] noted, nobody indicates that you were
the person that killed Ms. Gonzalez. Nobody. I know that [defense counsel] took
issue with it being who Mr. Hawkins said it was, but nobody said that it was you.
And that, of course, is a plus.
But you’re involved in an unbelievably serious crime with the worst
consequence ever: somebody getting murdered as a result. And so, while you are
not accused of being the person who pulled the trigger, you are just as responsible
as the person who did, which is why we’re here.
In terms of your rehabilitative potential, I am sure that your parents love
you. ***
But in terms of your potential, you’ve squandered it. You’ve had
opportunities involved in the court system to go a different direction. It started when
you were a juvenile; it continued when you were an adult—opportunities on
probation.
And while one of your probation terms indicates that, ultimately, it was
- 16 -considered successfully discharged, you faced a—and admitted to a petition to
revoke your probation, so I’m—maybe that’s quibbling, but every probation term I
believe that you had was—you faced a petition to revoke your probation. You were
sentenced to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice and the Illinois Department
of Corrections because of noncompliance with the terms and conditions of your
probation.
***
One of the things that I did in preparation for the sentencing was looking
back on your codefendant. As I indicated when we started, his sentence was 65
years in the Department of Corrections. He had a similar criminal history to yours.
He had an additional felony conviction. His role in the offense is alleged to be
different, but there really are no positives about this offense. There’s no spin that
you can put on it to say it’s not so bad. It’s breaking into people’s homes, stealing
their things, calling in for somebody else, and somebody gets killed. There’s
nothing good about that.”
¶ 68 Ultimately, the trial court sentenced defendant to 57 years in prison.
¶ 69 This appeal followed.
¶ 70 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 71 Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the trial testimony by the State’s DNA expert
lacked a proper foundation for her conclusion that one of the two male DNA profiles found on a
cigarette butt at the crime scene matched defendant’s DNA profile, (2) the State’s evidence was
not sufficient to prove defendant guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and
(3) defendant’s 57-year sentence was excessive.
- 17 -¶ 72 We disagree with all of defendant’s claims and affirm.
¶ 73 A. Defendant’s Claim That the Testimony Against Him by the State’s DNA Expert
Lacked a Proper Foundation for Her Conclusion
¶ 74 In his brief, defendant makes the following argument:
“The State’s DNA expert, Heather May, concluded that [defendant]
could not be excluded as a contributor to the mixture of DNA profiles found on
[the cigarette butt recovered from the crime scene]. However, May did not
explain how she conducted the DNA testing, did not state what testing method
she used, did not explain what steps she took, did not explain how she came to
her conclusion that [defendant] could not be excluded, and did not provide any
basis for her statistical calculations. Despite these glaring omissions in her
testimony, May’s testimony and opinions were admitted at trial.”
¶ 75 Defendant concedes that his trial attorney did not object to May’s testimony but
claims that the admission of her testimony constituted plain error. Alternatively, defendant claims
that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to May’s testimony on the grounds of lack
of foundation.
¶ 76 Because we conclude that May’s testimony was properly admitted, we reject all of
defendant’s contentions.
¶ 77 Defendant relies primarily upon People v. Safford, 392 Ill. App. 3d 212 (2009), and
People v. Murray, 2019 IL 123289, to support his argument. Accordingly, we discuss each of these
cases in detail.
¶ 78 1. Safford Was Wrongly Decided and Will Not Be Followed
¶ 79 a. A Summary of Safford
- 18 -¶ 80 In Safford, the defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and
attempted murder of a police officer. Safford, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 212. He argued on appeal that the
trial court committed reversible error when it allowed a fingerprint examiner to testify to his
conclusion that a print found on the victim’s vehicle belonged to the defendant without providing
an evidentiary foundation for his opinion. Id. at 212-13. The First District agreed with the
defendant’s argument, reversed his conviction, and remanded for a new trial. Id. at 213.
¶ 81 At trial, the trial court found Brent Cutro, a forensic scientist and latent fingerprint
examiner for the Illinois State Police’s Joliet, Illinois, laboratory with 24 years of experience,
qualified to testify as an expert witness. Id. at 220. Cutro testified that he had determined that one
latent print found on the lower left corner of the hood of the officer’s patrol car matched the inked
print of the defendant. Id.
¶ 82 The appellate court summarized some of Cutro’s testimony, as follows:
“Mr. Cutro testified his practice is to look at three levels of detail on
each fingerprint during his analysis in order to come up with points of
comparison. He testified he makes no notes when he finds points of comparison,
nor does he record how or why he arrives at his conclusions. He notes only
whether a latent print matches a known print. Mr. Cutro never testified to any
number of points of comparison that he found between the latent print from the
patrol car and the defendant’s print. Mr. Cutro acknowledged that during his
fingerprint examination he used a magnifying glass.” Id. at 217.
¶ 83 On cross-examination, Cutro admitted that, during the fingerprint examination, he
did not note the points of comparison he found. Id. at 220. The appellate court wrote the following
about his testimony:
- 19 -“Examiner Cutro testified he would have observed the points of comparison in
examining the Level Two detail. Examiner Cutro is among a group of experts
that [sic] does not exclusively base his ultimate opinion as to identification on
the points of comparison. He testified he made ‘matrix notes’ in reaching his
opinion, but admitted his notes do not explain how he reached his opinion in
this case. Examiner Cutro explained that he does not make notes as to his visual
examination of the prints he is comparing; he merely notes whether there is or
is not an identification.” Id.
¶ 84 The defendant argued that the trial court erred by allowing Cutro to testify regarding
his conclusion that the latent print recovered from the officer’s patrol car belonged to the defendant
without ever testifying, on either direct or cross-examination, about the evidentiary basis for his
opinion. Id. The defendant further argued that to allow opinion testimony based solely on the
qualifications of the witness as an expert, without disclosing the basis for the opinion, “ ‘would be
to invite forensic fraud.’ ” Id. The appellate court noted that the defendant was attacking Cutro’s
fingerprint identification testimony that the trial court allowed “as equivalent to allowing
[E]xaminer Cutro ‘to testify in essence: I am an expert and you have to take my word for it.’ ” Id.
¶ 85 After the appellate court first concluded—erroneously—that the determination of
whether the foundational requirements had been met for the admission of an expert opinion
presents a question of law that should be reviewed de novo, the appellate court was persuaded by
the defendant’s argument and reversed his conviction. Id. at 223.
¶ 86 The third member of the First District panel in Safford was Justice Warren D.
Wolfson, who dissented. Given that Justice Wolfson was renowned as one of the leading lights of
the Illinois judiciary and was considered, in particular, an expert on the rules of evidence, one
- 20 -would have thought that his dissent would have given the majority pause.
¶ 87 But apparently not.
¶ 88 In Justice Wolfson’s dissent, he wrote, in part, the following:
“There is a disquieting paucity of detail to support Examiner Cutro’s
opinion that the defendant’s fingerprint was on the windshield of Officer
Marcano’s squad car. I believe, however, Cutro’s testimony was sufficient,
barely, to place his conclusions before the jury. That is, the lack of testimony
concerning the number of points of comparison went to the weight of Cutro’s
opinions, not their admissibility.
Cutro testified at length about the comparison process he uses. In this
case, Cutro compared inked print cards containing the defendant’s prints with
the latent print found on the squad car. The exhibits were admitted into
evidence. He uses the ‘analysis comparison evaluation and verification
method.’ It consists of three levels. He does not use a points of comparison test.
In level one, Cutro looks at the flow or pattern type of fingerprint ridges.
Then come the magnifying glass comparisons, ‘comparing the latent and going
from the latent and looking at target individual characteristics or that level two
and level three detail that I spoke about, and trying to find those ending ridges
or bifurcations in sequence, and see if they match in sequence to the known
standards.’ The individual characteristics at level two can be ending ridges,
bifurcations, and dots. He uses level three if needed. Somewhere between the
second and third levels he looks at the breadth or width of the ridges.
Cutro determines whether certain points of comparison are located in
- 21 -the same place. His notes reflect his conclusions, but not how he reached them.
He identified the latent print as that of the defendant on two different occasions.
Each time his conclusion was verified by other examiners.
I have no desire to denigrate the importance of cross-examination.
However, I find no authority that supports the proposition that the lack of detail
we find here is devastating enough to bar a qualified and experienced
fingerprint examiner’s opinions.” Id. at 231 (Wolfson, J., dissenting).
¶ 89 b. Decisions Citing—and Rejecting—Safford
¶ 90 Since Safford was decided in June 2009, no court has cited it approvingly. The only
decision that—temporarily—did so was People v. Jones, 2015 IL App (1st) 121016, ¶ 2. In that
decision, the First District concluded that the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony
regarding firearms and toolmarks in which the expert identified the bullet found by the victim as
having been fired from the defendant’s gun. In Jones, the First District reversed the defendant’s
conviction “because the expert’s testimony lacked an adequate foundation where the expert
testified that he found ‘sufficient agreement’ but did not testify to any facts that formed the bases
or reasons for this ultimate opinion that the bullet matched [the] defendant’s gun.” Id.
¶ 91 Justice Mary Anne Mason vigorously dissented and instead agreed with the First
District’s observation in People v. Negron, 2012 IL App (1st) 101194, ¶ 41, that Safford (upon
which the majority in Jones relied) was “indeed an ‘outlier case’ and that ‘no reported case since
then’ has followed its reasoning. I do not believe this case should be the first to do so ***.” Jones,
2015 IL App (1st) 121016, ¶ 119 (Mason, J., dissenting).
¶ 92 In her scholarly dissent, Justice Mason discussed at length the many flaws present
in the Safford opinion and appropriately referred to Justice Wolfson’s learned dissent in that case.
- 22 -Id. ¶¶ 129-31.
¶ 93 As mentioned earlier, the Jones case only temporarily constituted a basis for a
decision approving of Safford because six months after the First District issued the Jones opinion,
the Illinois Supreme Court entered the following order in that case:
“This cause coining to be heard on the motion of petitioner, People of the
State of Illinois, due notice having been given to respondent, and the court being
fully advised in the premises;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to vacate the present cause ab initio due to
defendant’s death is allowed. The Appellate Court, First District, is directed to
vacate its judgment in case No; 1-12-1016. The Circuit Court of Cook County is
directed to vacate its judgment in case No. 08-CR-19575.” People v. Jones, No.
119826 (Ill. Oct. 26, 2015) (supervisory order).
We cannot be certain that this action by the Illinois Supreme Court reflects its rejection of the
reasoning in Jones, as well as the reasoning in Safford upon which Jones was based; however,
given that we cannot recall the Illinois Supreme Court’s ever taking similar action in any other
case, we view its supervisory order in Jones as rather short of an endorsement of the analyses
contained in Jones and Safford.
¶ 94 Seven years after Safford was decided, a unanimous panel of the First District
rejected the Safford analysis regarding expert testimony in People v. Simmons, 2016 IL App (1st)
131300, ¶¶ 123-26. In Simmons, Justice David Ellis wrote the following for a unanimous court:
“[W]e decline to follow Safford. As this court explained in Negron, 2012 IL
App (1st) 101194, ¶ 41, ‘Safford is an outlier case,’ and no court since Safford
has required that an expert disclose the specific reasons for his opinion as a
- 23 -prerequisite to admissibility. Thus, the court in Negron found that ‘the fact that
[the latent fingerprint examiner] did not rest his analysis or ultimate opinion on
a specific number of comparison points’ simply went to the weight of his
opinion that certain fingerprints matched. Id. ¶ 42.
And looking to Safford itself, we conclude that its analysis was flawed.
While the court in Safford cited the principle that the information on which an
expert bases his opinion must be reliable (Safford, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 221), it
did not correctly analyze that principle. That principle centers on whether ‘the
underlying facts or data upon which [the expert] seeks to base an opinion are of
a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field.’ [City of
Chicago v.] Anthony, 136 Ill. 2d [169,] 186 [(1990)]. But the majority in Safford
asked a different question—whether the expert sufficiently detailed the reasons
for his opinion. The presence or absence of such details is not the same as
whether the expert relied on information of a type reasonably relied upon by
experts in his field.
In this case, Mayland [(who was the expert whose testimony was at issue
in Simmons)] testified that he relied on the two bullets’ class characteristics and
individual characteristics to reach his conclusion. He testified that other
firearms and toolmark examiners rely on this information in conducting their
analyses. Thus, the State established that Mayland based his opinion on reliable
information, i.e., information on which other experts in his field rely. That he
did not specify which individual characteristics matched on these particular
bullets (i.e., the basis of his opinion) simply affected the weight of his
- 24 -opinion—a question for the jury to resolve, not a question for the court to
resolve when deciding whether to admit or exclude Mayland’s testimony.
Moreover, we disagree with the court’s conclusion in Safford that the
failure to reveal the basis for an expert opinion necessarily curtails a defendant’s
right to cross-examine the expert. This case provides an excellent example.
Here, defense counsel cross-examined Mayland on his inability to specify
which individual characteristics he identified as matching on the two bullets.
And she was able to elicit testimony that the Illinois State Police lack objective
criteria to guide their firearms comparison, and that the consecutive matching
stria method of identification has a more objective, data-driven foundation.
Defense counsel then used these points in her closing argument. While
Mayland’s testimony did not help defendant—defendant would have benefitted
most had Mayland’s testimony been excluded entirely—his inability to recall
which individual characteristics he identified did not preclude defense counsel
from ably cross-examining Mayland.” (Emphasis in original.) Id.
¶ 95 In People v. Bradford, 2019 IL App (4th) 170148, this court similarly rejected the
aberrational, erroneous decision in Safford. Writing for a unanimous court in Bradford, Justice
Craig DeArmond noted that the defendant argued it was error for his counsel not to object to what
the defendant characterized as an “unreliable firearm expert’s testimony,” due to what the
defendant claimed was an inadequate foundation for the expert’s testimony. Id. ¶ 16. After noting
that the defendant cited Safford in support of this claim, Justice DeArmond wrote the following:
“As was noted by the State, ‘Safford has been heavily criticized, and
characterized as an “outlier.” ’ People v. Robinson, 2018 IL App (1st) 153319,
- 25 -¶ 19 (citing People v. Negron, 2012 IL App (1st) 101194, ¶ 41 ***, People v.
Wilson, 2017 IL App (1st) 143183, ¶¶ 41-42 ***, and People v. Simmons, 2016
IL App (1st) 131300, ¶¶ 120-28 ***). The Robinson court went on to note it
was unable to find any published case that followed Safford’s reasoning.
Robinson, 2018 IL App (1st) 153319, ¶ 19. Under Illinois Rule of Evidence 705
(eff. Jan. 1, 2011), an expert ‘may testify in terms of opinion or inference and
give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data,
unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to
disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.’ Under Rule 705,
the burden is on the defense ‘ “during cross-examination to elicit the facts
underlying the expert opinion.” ’ Negron, 2012 IL App (1st) 101194, ¶ 42
(quoting Wilson v. Clark, 84 Ill. 2d 186, 194 (1981)). The court in Simmons
continued the criticism of Safford, noting the majority’s holding ran counter to
Rule 705 and a number of Illinois Supreme Court cases concluded that the basis
of an expert’s opinion is a matter for cross-examination since it goes to the
weight to be given the expert’s testimony and not its admissibility. Simmons,
2016 IL App (1st) 131300, ¶ 121 (‘ “[T]he basis for a witness’ opinion
generally does not affect his standing as an expert; such matters go only to the
weight of the evidence ***.” ’ (quoting Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1, 26
(2003))).” Id.
¶ 96 For the reasons explained by Justice DeArmond, this court in Bradford rejected all
of the defendant’s arguments and concluded that there was a sufficient foundation for the expert’s
testimony, which precluded the defendant’s counsel from objecting; accordingly, there was no
- 26 -deficient performance. Id. ¶ 17.
¶ 97 c. This Case
¶ 98 Despite the consistent, universal rejection by the appellate court of the aberrational,
erroneous decision of the First District in Safford, defendant’s primary claim in this case is that
the State’s DNA expert’s testimony should not have been admitted, based on the flawed Safford
analysis. Citing Safford, defendant contends that Heather May, when she testified, failed to discuss
her methodology or provide a scientific basis for her opinion that one of the two male DNA profiles
found on the cigarette butt matched defendant’s DNA profile.
¶ 99 In making this argument, defendant fails to acknowledge any of the analysis
contained in the appellate court decisions subsequent to Safford that we just discussed, all of which
explicitly rejected Safford’s analysis and conclusion.
¶ 100 We earlier set forth in detail the testimony of Heather May, the State’s DNA expert,
who testified regarding her conclusion that the DNA found on the cigarette butt she tested matched
the DNA of defendant. We need not repeat that testimony here but instead will simply note that
(1) in our judgment, the foundation the State elicited from May for her conclusion as an expert
witness was clearly adequate; (2) because the expert’s testimony was appropriately admitted,
defendant’s trial counsel’s “failure to object” did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel;
and (3) we join with our appellate court colleagues in yet again rejecting Safford and deeming that
case aberrational and wrongly decided.
¶ 101 d. The Epilogue for Safford
¶ 102 Every so often, Illinois courts are confronted with arguments that, despite being
repeatedly rejected, continue to be made. An example is the argument defendant makes in this
case—namely, that the repeatedly discredited case of Safford requires more detail from the expert
- 27 -witness about her methods and procedures before her testimony could be admitted.
¶ 103 One example of an appellate court dealing with such an argument occurred in
People v. Rodgers, 264 Ill. App. 3d 740, 742 (1992), in which the defendant was convicted of
various felonies. On appeal, the defendant argued, in part, that the trial court erred by allowing
testimony of extra-indictment offenses into evidence. Id. at 747. The appellate court rejected this
argument for the following reason: “Statements made by a defendant which illustrate, explain, or
interpret by way of collateral criminal acts, which are interwoven with the criminal transaction for
which the defendant is being tried, are admissible as a part of the res gestae of the underlying
criminal transaction.” Id.
¶ 104 Justice Allen Greiman wrote a brilliant special concurrence regarding the majority
opinion’s use of the discredited doctrine res gestae, as follows:
“Like an entombed vampire, every now and again
‘Count Res Gestae’ moves the cover of his coffin and begins to circulate in the
world of litigators and judges, promising them that they no longer must provide
rational analysis or appropriate explanations for exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Instead, they need only mutter ‘res gestae’ to cover a multitude of sins.” Id. at
752 (Greiman, P.J., specially concurring).
¶ 105 Justice Greiman then went on to describe how the concept of res gestae has been
universally criticized for decades and had been rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court 30 years
earlier. Id. at 752-53. Justice Greiman concluded his special concurrence with the following:
“Despite decades of uniform criticism of the use of res gestae, the
majority has elected to let the res gestae vampire out of its coffin.
I would hope that this concurring opinion can be the equivalent of a
- 28 -stake in the heart of res gestae and that the coffin lid may be securely fastened.”
Id. at 753.
¶ 106 Almost 30 years later, this court had its own version of a dead legal doctrine
escaping its coffin to haunt legal procedures. In People v. Jackson, 2020 IL App (4th) 170036,
¶ 42, the defendant was convicted of unlawful use of weapons (UUW), based upon an
accountability theory, and argued that for the common-design rule to apply (upon which the State
premised its case), the State must prove that the defendant attached himself to a group intent on
committing some specific offense. Accordingly, the defendant argued that he could not be
convicted of UUW if the group he joined did not intend to commit that specific offense. Id.
¶ 107 This court rejected the defendant’s claim and wrote the following:
“As the supreme court explained in [People v. Fernandez, 2014 IL
115527, ¶ 21], whether a defendant had the intent to commit some specific
crime is the focus in shared-intent cases, not common-design cases, like the
case now before us. Id. Shared-intent cases have nothing to do with commondesign cases because they are analytically separate. Id.
All members of the group in common-design cases who are bent on
illegal acts are equally responsible for ‘any acts in the furtherance of that
common design.’ Id. ¶ 13.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶¶ 44-45.
¶ 108 After so concluding, this court added an epilogue, in which we pointed out the many
courts that had rejected the very argument that the defendant raised in Jackson (including the
Illinois Supreme Court) and reiterated what we wrote in People v. Phillips, 2014 IL App (4th)
120695, ¶ 54, as follows:
“ ‘The shared-intent requirement of the common-design rule is as
- 29 -resilient as it is unsound. Its ability to maintain a foothold in Illinois
jurisprudence despite 160 years of rejection by the supreme court reminds
us of the defunct evidentiary doctrine of res gestae. Justice Greiman drew
the appropriate analogy:
“Like an entombed vampire, every now and again ‘Count
Res Gestae’ moves the cover of his coffin and begins to circulate in
the world of litigators and judges ***. ***
***
I would hope that this concurring opinion can be the
equivalent of a stake in the heart of res gestae and that the coffin
lid may be securely fastened.” [Citation.]
Like res gestae, the shared-intent requirement of the common-design rule
has shown an uncanny ability to come back from the dead. Even though
the past 160 years of supreme court precedent have failed to decisively kill
the bogus shared-intent requirement of the common-design rule, we are
hopeful that Fernandez has finally finished the job. We hope that this
opinion will serve as an additional nail in the coffin.’ [Citations.]
As shown by the arguments in this case, our hopes have been dashed that
the shared-intent requirement of the common-design rule has been killed. To
quote Miracle Max from ‘The Princess Bride,’ it appears that the shared-intent
requirement is ‘only mostly dead.’ Accordingly, in an effort to avoid a zombie
apocalypse of the undead, we hope that this latest opinion of ours might be the
equivalent of cutting off the head of the shared-intent requirement, riddling its
- 30 -body with silver bullets, stuffing its mouth with garlic, and burying it in a leadlined coffin in hallowed ground.” Jackson, 2020 IL App (4th) 170036, ¶¶ 68-69
(quoting Phillips, 2014 IL App (4th) 120695, ¶ 54, quoting People v. Rogers, 264
Ill. App. 3d 740, 752-53 (1992) (Greiman, P.J., specially concurring)).
¶ 109 Based on defendant’s argument in the present case, it appears once again that
Miracle Max was right: the discredited doctrine from Safford upon which defendant relies is “only
mostly dead.” So, to repeat what we wrote in Jackson, we hope that this latest opinion of ours
might be the equivalent of cutting off the head of the Safford doctrine, riddling its body with silver
bullets, stuffing its mouth with garlic, and burying it in a lead-lined coffin in hallowed ground.
¶ 110 2. Murray
¶ 111 The second case upon which defendant relies in support of his claim that the trial
court improperly admitted May’s expert testimony is Murray. In that case, the defendant was
convicted of first degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member.
Murray, 2019 IL 123289, ¶ 1. On appeal, the defendant argued only that the evidence was
insufficient to establish that he committed the firearm offense. Id. The supreme court agreed and
reversed the defendant’s gang-related criminal offense, concluding that the State failed to prove
that the Latin Kings (the gang at issue) was a “street gang,” as defined by Illinois statute. Id. ¶ 53.
In so concluding, the supreme court noted that the State’s expert witness regarding street gangs,
David Dammon, did not disclose the specific crime evidence required by the Illinois Streetgang
Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act (740 ILCS 147/1 et seq. (West 2012)) to support his opinion
that the Latin Kings was a street gang. Id. ¶ 29.
¶ 112 After reaching this conclusion, then-Justice P. Scott Neville Jr., now Chief Justice
Neville, wrote the following:
- 31 -“In addition, we observe that Illinois Rule of Evidence 705 (eff. Jan. 1,
2011) unambiguously requires that Dammon articulate the reasons for his
opinion. Rule 705 provides that ‘[t]he expert may testify in terms of opinion or
inference and give reasons therefore without first testifying to the underlying
facts or data.’ Id. Here, Dammon generally described in broad terms the types
of information and facts on which his opinion was based, but he never explained
his reasons as to why that information supported his opinion. Admittedly,
Dammon was not obligated to bring forth the underlying facts and data upon
which his opinion was premised, but merely identifying the source of those facts
and data, without explaining the reasons for his opinion, fails to prove the
elements of the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang
member.” Id. ¶ 31.
¶ 113 Based upon Murray and Safford (the First District opinion we just discussed),
defendant claims that May’s expert testimony was not admissible because she
“did not explain the makeup of DNA, did not explain how she conducted the
DNA testing, did not state what testing method she used to obtain [the
defendant’s] DNA profile, did not explain what DNA markers are used for
comparing profiles, much less describe what parts of [defendant’s] DNA profile
she analyzed or how she determined that [defendant’s] profile was ‘consistent’
with the mixture found on the cigarette.”
Defendant also contends that, contrary to the requirements of Murray, “the State did not meet the
first condition for the admissibility of expert evidence because it failed to provide reasons for the
expert’s opinions.”
- 32 -¶ 114 In defendant’s reply brief, he mentions how the State argued that “an expert may
give an opinion without disclosing the facts underlying the opinion,” citing Wilson, 84 Ill. 2d at
194, but then argues as follows:
“Notably, all of the State’s supporting cases pre-date the Supreme Court’s most
recent decision regarding the admission of expert evidence under Rule 705, People
v. Murray, 2019 IL 123289, which specifically held that Rule 705 ‘unambiguously
requires that [an expert] articulate the reasons for his opinion.’ Murray, 2019 IL
123289, ¶ 31.”
¶ 115 The primary problem with the argument defendant makes regarding Murray is that
the language defendant cites in Murray is not the opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court; instead,
it is the plurality opinion of two of the seven justices from that court.
¶ 116 To be more specific, the language from Murray upon which defendant relies—
namely, that “Illinois Rule of Evidence 705 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011) unambiguously requires that
Dammon articulate the reasons for his opinion” (Murray, 2019 IL 123289, ¶ 31)—was written by
then-Justice Neville for the majority in that case. However, regarding specifically his reference to
Rule 705, what Justice Neville wrote constituted a plurality opinion. That is because only Justice
Anne Burke concurred in what Justice Neville wrote.
¶ 117 Justice Thomas Kilbride specially concurred, with an opinion, joined by then-Chief
Justice Lloyd Karmeier. Justice Rita Garman dissented, with opinion, joined by Justices Robert
Thomas and Mary Jane Theis.
¶ 118 The very first paragraph of Justice Kilbride’s specially concurring opinion makes
it clear that he (and then-Chief Justice Karmeier) explicitly disagreed with Justice Neville’s
reference to Rule 705, where Justice Kilbride wrote the following:
- 33 -“I agree with the result and most of the majority’s analysis, but I do not join
its discussion of Illinois Rule of Evidence 705 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011), concluding that
the rule ‘unambiguously requires that [Detective] Dammon articulate the reasons
for his opinion.’ See supra ¶ 31. That discussion creates unnecessary tension
between this decision and our long-standing rule in Wilson v. Clark, 84 Ill. 2d 186
(1981). I believe the State’s failure to establish a prima facie case on the count
charging defendant with the unlawful possession of a firearm as a street gang
member negates any need to address either Rule 705 or Wilson.
In Wilson, we adopted Federal Rules of Evidence 703 and 705 and, as our
subsequent case law explains, declared
‘that, at trial, “an expert may give an opinion without disclosing the facts
underlying that opinion.” Wilson, 84 Ill. 2d at 194. “Under Rule 705 the
burden is placed upon the adverse party during cross-examination to elicit
the facts underlying the expert opinion.” Wilson, 84 Ill. 2d at 194. Thus, an
expert testifying at trial may offer an opinion based on facts not in evidence,
and the expert is not required on direct examination to disclose the facts
underlying the expert’s opinion. Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324, 334
(2002).’ People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125, 137 (2010), aff’d, 567 U.S. 50
(2012).
In contrast, the majority here [(that is, Justices Neville and Burke)] concludes that
Rule 705 ‘unambiguously requires’ experts to explain the reasons underlying their
opinions, creating tension with our long-standing statements in Wilson and its
- 34 -progeny, but does not harmonize the two views.” Id. ¶¶ 57-58 (Kilbride, J.,
specially concurring).
¶ 119 Justice Garman, in dissent, explicitly and strongly disagreed at length with the
plurality opinion written by Justice Neville that “Illinois Rule of Evidence 705 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011)
unambiguously requires that Dammon articulate the reasons for his opinion.” Id. ¶ 80 (Garman, J.,
dissenting). For our purposes, we need not go into detail about why Justice Garman believed
Justice Neville’s plurality opinion was inconsistent with the Illinois Supreme Court’s earlier
decision in Wilson and its progeny, because the reasons for her disagreement do not matter.
¶ 120 What matters is that Justices Thomas and Theis joined in Justice Garman’s dissent,
which means that Justices Garman, Thomas, and Theis, as well as Justices Kilbride and Karmeier
explicitly disagreed with Justice Neville’s statement regarding Rule 705 and the burden that rule
places upon the proponent of expert testimony.
¶ 121 We stress the following point: the language repeatedly emphasized by defendant
and primarily relied upon in his briefs to this court as being the language of the Illinois Supreme
Court is in fact language adopted by only two of the seven justices of the Illinois Supreme Court.
To make matters worse, it is not as if the other five members of the supreme court ignored this
issue or chose not to comment upon it; instead, they all explicitly rejected the language from Justice
Neville’s plurality opinion, upon which defendant relies.
¶ 122 We counted the number of times in defendant’s brief and reply brief that he referred
to the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Murray. In defendant’s initial brief, he devoted four
and a half pages to a discussion of Murray and its claimed application to the present case. In doing
so, defendant cited Murray 14 separate times. In defendant’s reply brief, he devoted the better part
of eight pages to a discussion of Murray and cited it 16 times.
- 35 -¶ 123 In none of defendant’s citations or references to Murray did he mention that the
language he cited and relied upon is from a plurality opinion representing the views of only two
of the seven justices from the Illinois Supreme Court. In this regard, it is interesting to note that
the 21 headnotes West Publishing Company has provided for the Northeastern Reporter and
Illinois Decisions regarding Murray all conclude with the following language: “(Per Neville, J.,
with one justice concurring in judgment and opinion and two justices specially concurring.).”
¶ 124 The best we can say about defendant’s argument to this court regarding Murray is
that it is misleading and disingenuous.
¶ 125 Having now pointed out that defendant’s argument based upon the plurality
language from Murray has collapsed like a house of cards, we need not further lengthen this
opinion by explaining why we reject defendant’s arguments regarding May’s expert testimony.
We repeat what we concluded earlier: (1) May’s testimony was properly admitted and (2) any
claim that defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to that testimony is
completely groundless.
¶ 126 B. Defendant’s Claim that the State’s Evidence Was Not Sufficient To Prove Him
Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
¶ 127 Defendant next argues that the State failed to prove him guilty of first degree
murder beyond a reasonable doubt because (1) the DNA evidence presented at his trial did not
establish that he was present at the scene of this offense and (2) the State’s only remaining evidence
was the unreliable and self-serving testimony of a coconspirator who testified in exchange for
complete immunity.
¶ 128 We strongly disagree.
¶ 129 1. The Applicable Law and the Standard of Review
- 36 -¶ 130 “When considering a challenge to a criminal conviction based upon
the sufficiency of the evidence, our function is not to retry the defendant.” People v. Johnson, 2026
IL 131337, ¶ 59. Instead, “[w]hen a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, a
reviewing court must determine 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.” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 64. “The weight to be given
the witnesses’ testimony, the credibility of the witnesses, resolution of inconsistencies and
conflicts in the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the testimony are the
responsibility of the trier of fact.” People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187, 242 (2006). “Therefore, a
reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on issues involving the
weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses.” Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 64.
¶ 131 2. This Case
¶ 132 Defendant’s argument that the State’s evidence was not sufficient to prove him
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt rests upon two premises: (1) “pursuant to People v. Murray,
2019 IL 123289, the State’s DNA expert’s testimony did not establish that DNA found at the scene
of the offense matched [defendant]” and (2) “the State’s only other evidence was the incredible
testimony of a co-conspirator [(Hawkins)] who testified in exchange for total immunity in this
case.”
¶ 133 We emphatically reject both of defendant’s claims and his ultimate conclusion that
the State’s evidence was not sufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 134 Regarding defendant’s reliance on Murray, we have already discussed at length
why that reliance is utterly meritless. See supra ¶¶ 112-26. We need not repeat that analysis here.
- 37 -Instead, we will simply note that the expert testimony of Heather May regarding DNA was
properly admitted and strongly incriminated defendant.
¶ 135 Regarding Hawkins, we note that he testified at length at defendant’s jury trial and
was subjected to cross-examination. The jury heard Hawkins admit his detailed involvement in
these crimes and that he had received full immunity regarding them in exchange for his testimony.
¶ 136 Defendant contends that the testimony of Hawkins was unworthy of belief, but we
note again that the weight to be given to the testimony of a witness and the determination of his
credibility are the responsibility of the trier of fact—in this case, the jury. Essentially, defendant
is asking this court to second-guess the jury and not accept its determination of Hawkins’s
credibility. We reject this inappropriate invitation.
¶ 137 Considering this record as a whole, we conclude that defendant’s claim that the
State’s evidence was not sufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is completely
without merit.
¶ 138 C. Defendant’s Claim That His Sentence Was Excessive
¶ 139 Last, defendant argues that his 57-year prison sentence was an abuse of discretion.
Specifically, he asserts that the trial court failed to properly consider evidence in mitigation and
the objective of restoring him to useful citizenship.
¶ 140 As an initial matter, defendant concedes that he forfeited these claims of error by
failing to properly preserve them in the trial court. See In re M.P., 2020 IL App (4th) 190814, ¶ 44
(“A defendant forfeits an issue for purposes of appellate review by failing to object to the alleged
error or raise it in a written posttrial motion.”). Nonetheless, he contends that we may review his
claims as first-prong and second-prong plain error.
- 38 -¶ 141 In the alternative, defendant argues that his sentencing counsel provided ineffective
assistance by failing to file a motion to reconsider based on the alleged errors.
¶ 142 We disagree and reject all of defendant’s claims.
¶ 143 1. The Applicable Law and the Standard of Review
¶ 144 a. Sentencing Generally
¶ 145 A statutorily authorized sentence is presumptively proper, and we may not disturb
a trial court’s evaluation of proper factors absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Musgrave, 2019
IL App (4th) 170106, ¶ 56. “A trial court’s sentence is an abuse of discretion if it is greatly at odds
with the spirit and purpose of the law or is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the
offense.” Id.
¶ 146 “The trial court must base its sentencing determination on the particular
circumstances of each case, considering such factors as the defendant’s credibility, demeanor,
general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age.” People v. Fern, 189 Ill.
2d 48, 53 (1999). “It is also required to consider statutory factors in mitigation and aggravation;
however, ‘the court need not recite and assign a value to each factor it has considered.’ ” People
v. Pina, 2019 IL App (4th) 170614, ¶ 19 (quoting People v. McGuire, 2017 IL App (4th) 150695,
¶ 38). We presume that a sentencing court considered all relevant factors, including factors in
mitigation. People v. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 43.
¶ 147 Defendant bears the burden of showing that the trial court failed to consider
mitigating evidence by pointing to explicit evidence in the record. Id.
¶ 148 b. The Plain-Error Doctrine
¶ 149 The plain-error doctrine permits a reviewing court to consider claims of
unpreserved error under the following two scenarios:
- 39 -“(1) when a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced
that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant,
regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) when a clear or obvious error
occurred and the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s
trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness
of the evidence.” People v. Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 20.
¶ 150 The usual first step in a plain-error analysis is to determine whether a clear and
obvious error occurred. People v. Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 44. “That is true because if there is
no error, then there can be no plain error.” People v. Maury, 2025 IL App (4th) 220887, ¶ 93.
“However, similar to the analytical framework we use to review a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel [citation], the first step of plain-error analysis is merely a matter of convention,” and
we may begin the analysis in any order. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Bowens, 407
Ill. App. 3d 1094, 1108 (2011). If either prong of the plain-error doctrine is not met, then a
defendant’s plain-error claim fails. Id.
¶ 151 c. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶ 152 A defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is analyzed under the twopronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). People v. Veach, 2017 IL
120649, ¶ 29.
“Under the Strickland standard, to prevail on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that his attorney’s representation
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that a reasonable
probability exists that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different.” People v. Torres, 2024 IL 129289, ¶ 27.
- 40 -“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Carroll, 2024 IL App (4th) 231207, ¶ 87.
¶ 153 “A defendant’s failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland standard precludes
a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Torres, 2024 IL 129289, ¶ 27.
¶ 154 2. This Case
¶ 155 Defendant argues that his 57-year sentence is excessive and amounts to a de facto
life sentence. He contends the trial court failed to adequately consider his rehabilitative potential,
his relatively nonviolent criminal history, and the impact his incarceration will have on his seven
children. In addition, much of his argument boils down to a claim that a first degree murder
conviction based on an accountability theory necessarily warrants a lesser sentence, emphasizing
his lack of participation in the actual shooting.
¶ 156 Regarding defendant’s accountability argument, the legislature established a
sentencing range for first degree murder, applicable both to the principal and to any party guilty
by way of accountability. Although defendant did not personally pull the trigger, the death of an
innocent victim was a clearly foreseeable consequence of the armed home invasion and robbery
he helped execute. We also note that the trial court imposed a prison sentence upon defendant
seven years shorter than the principal and significantly below the maximum he could have
received.
¶ 157 Moreover, the evidence at trial established defendant was a dangerous criminal
willing to break into an occupied home at night while armed with a handgun to execute a robbery.
Driven by greed, defendant actively participated in a shockingly violent home invasion, which this
court in another case has termed a “modern urban nightmare.” See People v. Wheeler, 2019 IL
App (4th) 160937, ¶ 45 (“Some crimes are so abhorrent that the defendant who committed them
- 41 -forever forfeits his right to walk among civilized society as a free man. No person should ever
have to suffer the modern urban nightmare that” the victim in that case endured.).
¶ 158 During the early morning hours, defendant and his accomplices held the victims at
gunpoint in their own home, beat them with firearms, threatened rape, and stole possessions
ranging from personal trinkets to expensive electronics. Not satisfied with the initial proceeds of
their crime, defendant and the other intruders detained the victims even longer and threatened to
beat Ibarra further, and defendant personally sexually assaulted Ibarra by shoving an object into
his rectum. Defendant then actively participated in disposing of the stolen items and weapons to
cover up the crimes.
¶ 159 Even when speaking in allocution, defendant refused to accept responsibility for
how his actions contributed to the death of Gonzalez or the trauma inflicted upon both Ibarra and
McCammond.
¶ 160 The record reflects that the sentencing court appropriately considered all mitigating
and aggravating factors. When mitigating evidence is before the court, it is presumed that the
sentencing judge considered it unless there is some indication to the contrary. People v. Sawyer,
139 Ill. App. 3d 383 (1985). The trial court explicitly stated it considered the trial evidence, the
PSI, defendant’s history, and the statutory factors. The court’s statement that only one factor in
mitigation applied simply indicates that the court believed only that particular factor weighed in
favor of a lower sentence, not that it ignored other allegedly mitigating evidence as a whole.
Defendant does not persuade us that his strained reading of the court’s statement shows that the
court failed to consider the mitigating evidence.
¶ 161 The trial court carefully and appropriately explained its consideration of the
evidence and its reasoning underlying defendant’s sentence. While noting the seriousness of the
- 42 -offense, the court also noted that defendant did not personally shoot the victim. And the court
specifically addressed (1) the impact the sentence would have on defendant’s family and
(2) defendant’s rehabilitative potential.
¶ 162 Essentially, all of defendant’s arguments are nothing more than a request for this
court to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. We decline to
do so. People v. Klein, 2022 IL App (4th) 200599, ¶ 37. A reviewing court must give substantial
deference to the trial court’s sentencing decision because the trial judge, having observed the
defendant and the proceedings, is in a much better position than this court to consider factors such
as the defendant’s credibility, demeanor, moral character, mentality, environment, habits, and age.
People v. Snyder, 2011 IL 111382, ¶ 36. The defendant bears the burden to affirmatively establish
either that (1) the sentence was based on improper considerations or (2) the trial court failed to
consider certain evidence. Halerewicz, 2013 IL App (4th) 120388, ¶ 43. In this case, defendant has
completely failed to meet that burden.
¶ 163 Accordingly, because the trial court committed no error when sentencing
defendant, there is no plain error. Likewise, because there was no error, trial counsel’s decision
not to challenge defendant’s sentence in a motion to reconsider cannot be a basis for a claim of
ineffectiveness of counsel.
¶ 164 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 165 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 166 Affirmed.
- 43 -People v. Taylor, 2026 IL App (4th) 250295
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, No. 21-CF-961; the Hon. Debra D. Schafer, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Melinda Grace Palacio, for of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant. Appellant:
Attorneys J. Hanley, State’s Attorney, of Rockford (Patrick Delfino, David for J. Robinson, and Timothy J. Londrigan, of State’s Attorneys Appellee: Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
- 44 -