![]() Again, defendant said he had information about a murder. He took the defendant to the 9th District and processed him for the unlawful use of a weapon. Once inside the car, defendant again said he did not want to go to jail, and asked "would it help if he knew about a murder."Ĭase showed no immediate interest in the defendant's inquiry. Very little progress in the police investigation of the death was made until February 13, 1996, when Officer David Case arrested the defendant for unlawful use of a weapon.Ĭase testified that while outside the car defendant told him he did not want to go to jail. We affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.Ĭurtis Jackson was shot seven times and killed as he talked to someone in a small white car at 41st and Indiana Streets in Chicago shortly after midnight on July 9, 1995. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) his statement should have been suppressed (2) too much gang life evidence was admitted (3) his prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance should not have been admitted to impeach his credibility (4) he was denied a fair trial when the State made improper remarks during closing argument and (5) his sentence was based on an improper factor and was excessive. He was sentenced to 41 years in the Department of Corrections. His conviction by a jury of the first degree murder of Curtis Jackson was based almost entirely on his oral and written statements. Kevin Hamilton literally talked himself into the penitentiary. JUSTICE WOLFSON delivered the opinion of the court: ![]() Nor can it accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense. The prosecution cannot use its official position to bolster witness credibility. We continue to be puzzled by the State's willingness to risk the integrity of convictions by making comments we repeatedly have held cross the line of propriety.The bounds of permissible comment may have been exceeded on occasion, but we recognize "the verdict must not be disturbed unless it can be said that the remarks resulted in substantial prejudice to the accused, such that absent those remarks the verdict would have been different." People v. We have examined the State's comments and find they do not, singly or together, rise to the level of reversible error. The defense contends several closing argument remarks by the prosecution constituted reversible error.Relying on that ruling, defense counsel elicited the fact of conviction on direct examination. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to bar the State from using his prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance for impeachment purposes.It was uncontested that all questioners gave defendant his Miranda rights before statements were made. Case knew nothing about the Jackson murder when he arrested the defendant. They had nothing to do with the defendant's original arrest and unlawful detention. The trial court recognized, and we agree, that there is ample evidence the defendant willingly and for his own purposes made his statements to ASA Wisnosky and the Area 1 detectives.Relevant gang evidence is not excluded simply because it may have a tendency to prejudice the accused. At the same time, evidence of gang membership and gang rivalries becomes relevant when it establishes the reasons for deadly gang behavior. ![]() We recognize there may be strong prejudice against street gangs in the Chicago area.But the decision to admit gang evidence is not to be overturned on appeal "unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown." People v. The trial court should have done some editing. ![]() We do agree with the defendant that the torrent of detail concerning gang life, especially the prevalence of gang tattoos and the competitive narcotics sale enterprises, was unnecessary piling on. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |