People v. Foster
This text of 2026 IL App (5th) 230726-U (People v. Foster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 230726-U NOTICE Decision filed 02/02/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-23-0726 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the
Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1). APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Madison County. ) v. ) No. 21-CF-2921 ) STEVEN FOSTER, ) Honorable ) Neil T. Schroeder, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Moore ∗ and Boie ** concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The defendant was deprived of a fair trial where he established that the admission of the phone records, including the geolocation data, and the video interview, along with the improper testimony by law enforcement regarding the defendant’s credibility constituted plain error. The judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
¶2 A jury found the pro se defendant, Steven Foster, guilty of multiple counts, including three
counts of attempt murder. He was sentenced to a total of 135 years in the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC). On direct appeal, the defendant claims that cumulative error denied the
defendant of a fair trial; the circuit court failed to provide proper admonishments for waiver of
∗ Justice Moore fully participated in the decision prior to his retirement. See Cirro Wrecking Co. v. Roppolo, 153 Ill. 2d 6 (1992). ** For administrative reasons Justice Boie has been substituted on the panel. Justice Boie has read the briefs in this case and has listened to the recording of oral argument. 1 counsel under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401(a); the State failed to provide notice before raising
a transferred intent argument during its rebuttal in closing arguments; the State engaged in
pervasive prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and closing arguments; and the 135-year
sentence was excessive given the nature of the case and the defendant’s rehabilitative potential.
For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On September 8, 2021, a shooting occurred at Oakwood Estates, a housing complex in
Alton, Illinois, where a group of individuals were socializing outside that evening. Among this
group was Kenneth (Ken) Jones, who was intoxicated. Ken began antagonizing two other people,
namely Darylann Hardimon and Danyelle Gaston. The confrontation escalated and Darylann
contacted her boyfriend, the defendant, who arrived shortly thereafter. The defendant argued with
Ken and his friend, Charles Thompson. Law enforcement responded to the commotion and broke
up the gathering. The defendant left, but others gathered again after law enforcement officers were
no longer present. Then, gunshots were fired into the gathering of approximately 20 people. Three
people, Charles Thompson, Jackie Sharp, and Troy Jones, were shot and hospitalized after
sustaining serious injuries from gunshot wounds.
¶5 The defendant was charged on September 16, 2021, by information, with three counts of
attempt first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) (West 2020)); three counts of aggravated battery
with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2020)); one count of armed habitual criminal (720
ILCS 5/24-1.7(a) (West 2020)); one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-
1.2(a)(2) (West 2020)); and one count of unlawful possession of weapons by a felon (720 ILCS
5/24-1.1(a) (West 2020)). An indictment was returned on October 21, 2021, charging the same
conduct and counsel was appointed for the defendant.
2 ¶6 Pretrial
¶7 On September 12, 2022, the defendant filed a motion to proceed pro se, and the circuit
court held a hearing on the defendant’s motion on September 29, 2022. The defendant claimed
that he did not understand the charges. Defense counsel stated that she had gone through the file,
made extensive notes, and discussed the case with the defendant. The circuit court determined that
the defendant was 36 years old, attended a military high school, and had earned some college
credits. The defendant was able to read, write, and understand the English language. He was not
under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and he did not have a physical or mental disability. The
defendant had been involved in prior criminal cases but had never represented himself.
¶8 The circuit court read each count of the information to the defendant and specifically
explained that attempt first degree murder had a sentencing range of 6 to 30 years, and that the
defendant was subject to a firearm enhancement of 25 years to life for each of those charges.
Because the charges involved three different victims, the defendant would be sentenced to
consecutive sentences if convicted on more than one count. The circuit court emphasized that the
defendant faced spending the remainder of his life in prison if found guilty. The additional charges
and their sentencing ranges were also explained to the defendant. The defendant indicated that he
understood each of the charges as explained by the circuit court.
¶9 The circuit court further explained to the defendant that he would be required to adhere to
the rules of evidence at trial and the attorneys that were appointed to represent him had substantial
training and experience in trial procedure. The circuit court cautioned the defendant that the State
was represented by experienced attorneys, and the defendant would be at a disadvantage
representing himself without any trial experience. The defendant was warned that he may be
disadvantaged by failing to object to inadmissible evidence and his tactical decisions may have
3 unintended consequences due to his inexperience. The circuit court additionally cautioned the
defendant that the jury would be able to observe his interactions with the circuit court and
witnesses, and that the defendant’s conduct, attitude, and temperament could affect the judgment
of the trier of fact.
¶ 10 The circuit court found that the defendant understood the nature of the charges and the
possible penalties. The defendant was informed of his right to counsel, and if he were unable to
afford an attorney, one would be appointed for him. The circuit court found that the defendant
understood his right to counsel, and that the defendant made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent
waiver of his right to counsel. As the defendant’s request for waiver of counsel was accepted by
the circuit court, his public defender was discharged.
¶ 11 On February 8, 2023, the defendant requested the appointment of counsel. The circuit court
granted his request and appointed a public defender. Before defense counsel met with the
defendant, the grand jury returned an amended indictment on February 9, 2023, on the same
charges. The only modification made was on the unlawful possession of weapons by a felon count
which corrected the date of a prior conviction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 230726-U NOTICE Decision filed 02/02/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-23-0726 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the
Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1). APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Madison County. ) v. ) No. 21-CF-2921 ) STEVEN FOSTER, ) Honorable ) Neil T. Schroeder, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Moore ∗ and Boie ** concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The defendant was deprived of a fair trial where he established that the admission of the phone records, including the geolocation data, and the video interview, along with the improper testimony by law enforcement regarding the defendant’s credibility constituted plain error. The judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
¶2 A jury found the pro se defendant, Steven Foster, guilty of multiple counts, including three
counts of attempt murder. He was sentenced to a total of 135 years in the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC). On direct appeal, the defendant claims that cumulative error denied the
defendant of a fair trial; the circuit court failed to provide proper admonishments for waiver of
∗ Justice Moore fully participated in the decision prior to his retirement. See Cirro Wrecking Co. v. Roppolo, 153 Ill. 2d 6 (1992). ** For administrative reasons Justice Boie has been substituted on the panel. Justice Boie has read the briefs in this case and has listened to the recording of oral argument. 1 counsel under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401(a); the State failed to provide notice before raising
a transferred intent argument during its rebuttal in closing arguments; the State engaged in
pervasive prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and closing arguments; and the 135-year
sentence was excessive given the nature of the case and the defendant’s rehabilitative potential.
For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On September 8, 2021, a shooting occurred at Oakwood Estates, a housing complex in
Alton, Illinois, where a group of individuals were socializing outside that evening. Among this
group was Kenneth (Ken) Jones, who was intoxicated. Ken began antagonizing two other people,
namely Darylann Hardimon and Danyelle Gaston. The confrontation escalated and Darylann
contacted her boyfriend, the defendant, who arrived shortly thereafter. The defendant argued with
Ken and his friend, Charles Thompson. Law enforcement responded to the commotion and broke
up the gathering. The defendant left, but others gathered again after law enforcement officers were
no longer present. Then, gunshots were fired into the gathering of approximately 20 people. Three
people, Charles Thompson, Jackie Sharp, and Troy Jones, were shot and hospitalized after
sustaining serious injuries from gunshot wounds.
¶5 The defendant was charged on September 16, 2021, by information, with three counts of
attempt first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) (West 2020)); three counts of aggravated battery
with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2020)); one count of armed habitual criminal (720
ILCS 5/24-1.7(a) (West 2020)); one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-
1.2(a)(2) (West 2020)); and one count of unlawful possession of weapons by a felon (720 ILCS
5/24-1.1(a) (West 2020)). An indictment was returned on October 21, 2021, charging the same
conduct and counsel was appointed for the defendant.
2 ¶6 Pretrial
¶7 On September 12, 2022, the defendant filed a motion to proceed pro se, and the circuit
court held a hearing on the defendant’s motion on September 29, 2022. The defendant claimed
that he did not understand the charges. Defense counsel stated that she had gone through the file,
made extensive notes, and discussed the case with the defendant. The circuit court determined that
the defendant was 36 years old, attended a military high school, and had earned some college
credits. The defendant was able to read, write, and understand the English language. He was not
under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and he did not have a physical or mental disability. The
defendant had been involved in prior criminal cases but had never represented himself.
¶8 The circuit court read each count of the information to the defendant and specifically
explained that attempt first degree murder had a sentencing range of 6 to 30 years, and that the
defendant was subject to a firearm enhancement of 25 years to life for each of those charges.
Because the charges involved three different victims, the defendant would be sentenced to
consecutive sentences if convicted on more than one count. The circuit court emphasized that the
defendant faced spending the remainder of his life in prison if found guilty. The additional charges
and their sentencing ranges were also explained to the defendant. The defendant indicated that he
understood each of the charges as explained by the circuit court.
¶9 The circuit court further explained to the defendant that he would be required to adhere to
the rules of evidence at trial and the attorneys that were appointed to represent him had substantial
training and experience in trial procedure. The circuit court cautioned the defendant that the State
was represented by experienced attorneys, and the defendant would be at a disadvantage
representing himself without any trial experience. The defendant was warned that he may be
disadvantaged by failing to object to inadmissible evidence and his tactical decisions may have
3 unintended consequences due to his inexperience. The circuit court additionally cautioned the
defendant that the jury would be able to observe his interactions with the circuit court and
witnesses, and that the defendant’s conduct, attitude, and temperament could affect the judgment
of the trier of fact.
¶ 10 The circuit court found that the defendant understood the nature of the charges and the
possible penalties. The defendant was informed of his right to counsel, and if he were unable to
afford an attorney, one would be appointed for him. The circuit court found that the defendant
understood his right to counsel, and that the defendant made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent
waiver of his right to counsel. As the defendant’s request for waiver of counsel was accepted by
the circuit court, his public defender was discharged.
¶ 11 On February 8, 2023, the defendant requested the appointment of counsel. The circuit court
granted his request and appointed a public defender. Before defense counsel met with the
defendant, the grand jury returned an amended indictment on February 9, 2023, on the same
charges. The only modification made was on the unlawful possession of weapons by a felon count
which corrected the date of a prior conviction.
¶ 12 The defendant thereafter met with defense counsel, who then filed a motion to withdraw
asserting that the defendant wished to proceed pro se. On February 23, 2023, the circuit court held
a hearing on the motion to withdraw. Defense counsel explained that he had met with the defendant
for approximately two hours, and the defendant indicated that he wished to represent himself. The
circuit court addressed the defendant and the following transpired:
“THE COURT: All right. We’ve gone through all of the admonishments extensively previously. I don’t think I need to do it again. You understand, I think you very much understand, your right to counsel; what your options are. I think you very much understand the charges, the gravity of the charges, the possible sentences for the charges. So you’re not under the influence of anything today; are you?
4 DEFENDANT: No, [Y]our Honor.
THE COURT: You’ve given this some thought? Evidently you expressed this to Mr. Fuller on the 21st. It’s now the 23rd. So you’ve been thinking about this, I assume, for some time?
DEFENDANT: That’s correct. Yes, [Y]our Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I’m going to find that you’re, once again, representing yourself, Mr. Foster. I think you’ve made a knowing and voluntary waiver of your rights again. So you’re back to representing yourself.”
¶ 13 A pretrial hearing was held on March 14, 2023, during which the circuit court addressed
the State’s use of the defendant’s videotaped interview with law enforcement. The State informed
the circuit court that several redactions had been made to the video where the defendant had
referenced federal probation, or a probation officer, prison time, and charges in other cases. The
defendant objected to the State playing the edited version of the video in its entirety and argued
that the video was not relevant as no admissions were made during the interrogation. The defendant
further argued that the State was attempting to introduce character evidence, which was irrelevant.
The circuit court took the defendant’s objection under advisement and reviewed the redacted
video.
¶ 14 The next day, the circuit court held another hearing to address the admissibility of the
redacted video recording of the defendant’s interview with law enforcement. The defendant had
not had an opportunity to review the latest redacted version, but again objected to the State playing
the entire video which contained hearsay, references to prior convictions, and irrelevant
statements. The circuit court overruled the defendant’s hearsay and relevancy objections but
allowed the defendant to review the newly redacted video to determine if it improperly referenced
other prior criminal acts. The circuit court ultimately overruled the defendant’s objections and
5 allowed the State to introduce a redacted video, over two hours in duration, of the defendant’s
interview with law enforcement.
¶ 15 Jury Trial
¶ 16 A multiple day jury trial began on March 21, 2023. After the jury was selected and the
parties presented opening statements, the State introduced testimony from the three individuals
who suffered injuries during the September 8, 2021, shooting.
¶ 17 Jackie Sharp, Troy Jones, and Charles Thompson each testified that they were not familiar
with the defendant, and none of them saw the shooter. All three victims required hospitalization
due to their gunshot wounds and were all flown by helicopter for medical treatment in St. Louis,
Missouri, on the night of the shooting.
¶ 18 Jackie also testified to the events that occurred before the shooting on the evening of
September 8, 2021. She and some friends were together outside at Oakwood Estates. Ken was
there also and began an argument by commenting on Danyelle’s car. Darylann borrowed
Danyelle’s cell phone to find people who would “beat up Ken.” A man wearing red arrived with a
“man purse.” He had a gun and confronted Ken. Charles, a friend of Ken, also appeared, “flying
in like a bat out of hell.” Jackie testified that Charles had a gun in his waistband. The police were
called and made people move after they arrived. The man in red walked off after the police tried
to disperse the group. A video of the altercation was admitted into evidence and played for the
jury.
¶ 19 Jackie additionally testified that everything calmed down, and eventually people gathered
and started talking again. Then, gunshots “erupted.” Troy, Jackie, and Charles fell to the ground
after they were shot. Jackie indicated that the shots came from the “dark side of the building.” She
could not see the face of the shooter but did testify that he had on a hoodie and was wearing all
6 black. Charles gave his gun to Ken, and Ken fired the weapon in the wrong direction. Two
surveillance videos of the shooting incident were played for the jury, and were used by Jackie to
identify the scene. Jackie could not identify the shooter and when asked if she knew the defendant,
she did not.
¶ 20 Ken testified that on September 8, 2021, he was intoxicated and had been involved in an
argument. Ken mocked Danyelle’s damaged car, which upset her. Darylann threatened Ken and
called her boyfriend to “come do something to me.” Her boyfriend appeared and began arguing
with Ken and several other people. Darylann’s boyfriend then pulled a gun out of a pouch and
yelled. The fight calmed down after Darylann walked away with her boyfriend.
¶ 21 Ken testified that everything had calmed down for a little while, but then more verbal
arguments started. Darylann returned but she walked away from where everyone was standing.
Then, the shooting started. Ken’s nephew, Charles, threw his firearm towards Ken. Ken testified
that he fired back in self-defense. When police officer interviewed Ken, he gave them the firearm
that he had used. Ken believed that there were two shooters, but he could not identify anyone
because he had ducked down.
¶ 22 Darylann testified that the defendant was her boyfriend and she identified the defendant in
the courtroom. Darylann lived in Oakwood Estates. On September 8, 2021, Ken was intoxicated,
and he tried to hit Darylann and Danyelle with a liquor bottle. Darylann testified that she had called
the defendant from Danyelle’s phone, using the Facebook Messenger application. The defendant
used the name “S DOT RU” on Facebook.
¶ 23 The defendant arrived wearing a red shirt and he had a bag. Darylann testified that she
never saw the defendant reach into the bag or pull anything out of the bag. The argument ended
when the police made everyone leave. The defendant walked Darylann to her house. He told her
7 to go inside and he left. The defendant then called Danyelle’s phone because he thought some
items had fallen out of his bag earlier. Darylann remained on the phone with the defendant as she
went back to pick up the items, and Ken approached her again to accuse her of calling the police.
The defendant, who was still on the phone with Darylann, told her to go to Danyelle’s house.
Darylann testified that she was still on the phone with the defendant inside of Danyelle’s apartment
when she heard gunshots. She hung up the phone and called 911.
¶ 24 Darylann testified that when the police questioned her about her boyfriend, she provided
the police with a false name. Darylann additionally testified that she remained in a relationship
with the defendant.
¶ 25 Shirlene Jones testified that she worked for the Alton Housing Authority. On September 8,
2021, people were arguing over parking spots, and Shirlene wanted to break up the argument.
Shirlene noticed that Darylann was making phone calls. Then, a male, “medium skinned, about
5’6 maybe, about 200, beard” arrived wearing shorts and a red t-shirt. He began arguing with
Charles. Darylann handed a bag to the man, and Shirlene noticed the “butt” of a gun sticking out
of the bag. The man in red said that he “wasn’t scared of nobody and that he will shoot up the
place and stuff.” Darylann and the man walked away when the police appeared. The police directed
people to move their double parked cars. Shirlene remained outside and was looking at her phone
when she heard the gunshots. Shirlene saw a person in all black that she believed to be the shooter,
run behind houses.
¶ 26 Terrea Gates, the defendant’s cousin, testified that the State agreed to dismiss two charges
against her and allow her to plead guilty to a misdemeanor in exchange for her testimony. On
September 8, 2021, Terrea was with her husband, Lajuane Robinson, in Oakwood Estates, and she
saw the defendant walk by. A few minutes later, she heard a commotion down the street and found
8 that a “whole bunch of people” were yelling at the defendant. Darylann had the defendant by his
arm. Terrea grabbed the defendant and walked him towards Terrea’s car. Lajuane drove the
defendant to a house on College Avenue. The defendant went into the residence and spent about
five minutes. He returned to the car and asked for a ride back to Oakwood Estates.
¶ 27 Terrea did not look at the defendant when he returned to the car and was not aware if the
defendant had changed clothes or if he was carrying anything. The defendant sat in the back seat
of the car, and they dropped him back off on Toledo Avenue near Oakwood Estates. After dropping
the defendant off, Lajuane and Terrea went to a nearby convenience store. The defendant then sent
Terrea a text message that he had left his backpack in the car. The defendant met Terrea at Belle
Manor that evening and she returned his bag.
¶ 28 Terrea also testified that she was interviewed by law enforcement on September 13, 2021.
She was not truthful with law enforcement at that time because she was afraid of being implicated
in a crime and wanted to protect the defendant. Terrea denied giving the defendant a ride but
testified that she told the truth in the second interview on March 9, 2022.
¶ 29 On cross-examination, Terrea testified that on March 9, 2022, she was being held on
pending charges regarding a firearm. Law enforcement went to Terrea’s house to speak to her
about the defendant and found a firearm at that time. Terrea’s second interview was substantially
the same as the testimony she gave at trial.
¶ 30 Lajuane Robinson testified that he was in custody on two different felony charges. Lajuane
agreed to plead guilty in both pending cases. He accepted a three-year sentence for one case, and
a sentence of 24 months in the other, in exchange for testifying.
¶ 31 Lajuane testified that on September 8, 2021, he was with his wife, Terrea, at Oakwood
Estates, to purchase marijuana from the defendant. The defendant had walked by their car and
9 Terrea called the defendant’s name. The defendant did not stop and was headed down the street.
There was “some commotion” in the direction that the defendant was headed. Lajuane was on
parole at that time and did not want to be involved in a fight. Terrea went to check on the defendant,
and she returned with the defendant and Darylann. Darylann left and Lajuane drove the defendant
to a house on College Avenue. The defendant directed him to a residence there. The defendant
spent about five minutes in the house and returned to the backseat of Lajuane’s car. The defendant
asked for a ride back to Oakwood Estates and Lajuane dropped the defendant off on Toledo
Avenue, which was nearby. Lajuane then drove to a gas station and was there when he heard
gunshots. Lajuane also testified that the defendant left a bag in the back seat of the car, which
Terrea returned to the defendant that evening. Lajuane testified that he was not honest with law
enforcement during his first interview because he did not want to be implicated in a crime. When
he was interviewed again on February 24, 2022, he told the truth.
¶ 32 On cross-examination, Lajuane testified that he never saw the defendant with a firearm.
Lajuane did not see the defendant wearing all black clothing.
¶ 33 Shaquitta Watkins testified that she was the defendant’s friend. On September 8, 2021, she
went to a Cardinals baseball game with the defendant and the defendant’s son. The defendant was
wearing a red hat and a red shirt. After the baseball game, Shaquitta dropped the defendant off at
Oakwood Estates and drove the defendant’s son to pick up a change of clothes. She also picked up
her daughter. On her way back home, she saw a squad car with flashing lights heading towards
Oakwood Estates, and she called the defendant. He did not answer, but he did return her call. The
defendant asked Shaquitta to pick up him, and he sounded “like he was rushing.” Shaquitta testified
that she picked up the defendant on Toledo Avenue.
10 ¶ 34 When Shaquitta picked up the defendant, he was wearing a dark hoodie. The defendant
took his shirt off and Shaquitta believed that she saw the defendant wrap his shirt around
something. Shaquitta drove the defendant to Belle Manor to pick up his bag. They then drove to
Shaquitta’s house to drop off her daughter, and on the way, the defendant directed Shaquitta to
stop the car. He threw his sweatshirt in the bushes. Shaquitta drove to the defendant’s place on
Ervay Avenue after dropping off her daughter, but they subsequently ended up staying at a house
on College Avenue.
¶ 35 While they were driving, Shaquitta heard the defendant tell someone over the phone that
he was not at Oakwood Estates. That evening, the defendant asked Shaquitta to get rid of his phone.
Shaquitta later turned the defendant’s phone over to the police. Photographs of a phone that
Shaquitta identified as the defendant’s phone were admitted into evidence.
¶ 36 During cross-examination, Shaquitta testified that she never saw the defendant with a
firearm. She would have noticed if the defendant had been carrying a large weapon. She also
testified that the defendant had a calm demeanor that evening.
¶ 37 Sergeant Joseph Splittorff, an Alton Police Department investigator, indicated his
participation in the September 8, 2021, shooting included the review of the defendant’s Facebook
page, information downloaded from Shaquitta Watkins’s cell phone, and information from
Danyelle’s cell phone. Splittorff testified that the defendant’s Facebook name was “S DOT RU,”
and that the defendant deactivated his Facebook page on September 11, 2021.
¶ 38 Splittorff described, in detail, the timing of the Facebook communications between the
defendant and Darylann that took place through Danyelle’s Facebook Messenger account. The
defendant objected to Splittorff testifying using Facebook data as Splittorff was not identified as
an expert witness and the circuit court directed the State to lay a foundation. Splittorff then testified
11 that he had training through his experience in investigations in “open source intelligence
gathering,” He had attended formal trainings, and had viewed thousands of pieces of intelligence
data and social media data and was able to observe “the way these are recorded.” Splittorff again
testified to the timing of the calls made and the defendant raised a general objection that was
overruled. Splittorff continued to testify to the timing of various calls that occurred between
Danyelle and the defendant, including an outgoing call from Danyelle to the defendant that ended
at 11:17 p.m. Splittorff testified that the shooting had taken place at 11:18:55 based on the
surveillance video footage. The defendant objected that Splittorff’s testimony was hearsay and the
circuit court overruled the objection.
¶ 39 Splittorff additionally explained that the last call recorded, according to the data, ended a
minute and a half prior to the shooting. The next missed call through Facebook was made from the
defendant’s Facebook account to Danyelle’s account at 11:20 p.m. Splittorff concluded that the
defendant was not on the phone at the time when the shooting occurred.
¶ 40 On cross-examination, Splittorff testified that the timestamps on the video surveillance
from Oakwood Estates were off by 2 minutes and 34 seconds and clarified that the shooting
actually began at 11:18 and 55 seconds. Splittorff additionally explained that audio calls from
Facebook Messenger displayed the time the calls ended. The following transpired when the
defendant inquired:
“Q. And you stated you are an expert when it comes to how Facebook
Messenger calls work?
A. I’m not sure that I would qualify myself as an expert. I just have
significant training, and I’ve had significant experience analyzing those type of
records.”
12 The defendant then questioned Splittorff regarding when he discovered that the timestamp on the
Oakwood Estates surveillance video was incorrect, and Splittorff responded “very early in the
investigation.” The defendant questioned if Splittorff had notified the State of the discrepancy, and
the State requested a side bar.
¶ 41 After the jury and witness left the courtroom, the defendant claimed that he was unaware
that the surveillance video timestamp was off. The State informed the circuit court that it provided
discovery to the defendant that indicated the time disparity on the surveillance video, and that the
defendant had received that information in discovery.
¶ 42 The circuit court resumed testimony without any formal ruling, and Splittorff testified that
he was not the person who discovered the inaccuracy of the video timestamps. He was unaware of
whether the timestamps in the investigative report were based on the video timestamp or the correct
time of day. Splittorff had not drafted the investigative report.
¶ 43 Splittorff was later recalled by the State to testify that he collected video surveillance
footage from Sanders Waste, a property near the south end of the Oakwood Estates. Splittorff
explained that Toledo Avenue was a main thoroughfare that people commonly used to travel to
and from Oakwood Estates. Video footage obtained from Sanders Waste depicted Lajuane and
Terrea dropping the defendant off on Toledo Avenue. The defendant arrived on Toledo Avenue at
11:06 p.m. and was picked up at 11:24 p.m. The shooting took place at 11:18 p.m.
¶ 44 Thomas Gamboe testified as an expert witness in the field of firearm and tool marks.
Gamboe identified the four fired cartridge casings from the Taurus 9-millimeter PTG2 Ken had
turned over to law enforcement. He testified that no shell casings were recovered from the area
where the shooter was located. Gamboe indicated that a shotgun with buckshot ammunition, that
had multiple projectiles, could have caused numerous gunshot wounds to the three victims in this
13 case. Gamboe opined further that it was possible for the shooter to use a type of shotgun that was
capable of firing 12 times without discharging a cartridge case.
¶ 45 Detective Partick Bennett testified that he was a detective with the Alton Police Department
in the criminal investigation division. Bennett conducted the law enforcement interview of the
defendant that was captured on video. Bennett indicated that every time the defendant provided an
answer inconsistent with the evidence, he would take a drink of coffee or put the coffee up to his
mouth, even after the cup was empty. The defendant would also look at the camera when he
provided inconsistent statements. The 2-hour-and-17-minute video of the defendant’s
interrogation was admitted into evidence and published for the jury, over the defendant’s objection.
¶ 46 The interrogation began with Bennett handing the defendant a cup of coffee as Bennett and
another detective entered the interview room. Bennett started the interview by informing the
defendant that they had been working on the case for a couple weeks, and they had spoken to
multiple people and reviewed multiple surveillance videos from the area of the shooting. Bennett
asked the defendant general demographic questions. The defendant indicated that he had been
kicked out of school and attended a military academy. Thereafter, Bennett gave the defendant
Miranda 1 warnings.
¶ 47 The majority of the defendant’s interview focused on the evening of September 8, 2021.
The defendant stated that he had attended a baseball game and was dropped off by Shaquitta at
Oakwood Estates after the game. The defendant provided an animated explanation of what
occurred at Oakwood Estates after he arrived. He stood up in the interview room to reenact his
interaction with Charles, who he did not know at that time. Charles had pulled a gun on the
defendant. The defendant explained that Shaquitta was supposed to drive him home after the
1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 14 defendant checked on Darylann. Terrea was at Oakwood Estates, and Terrea and her husband gave
the defendant a ride home. The defendant first claimed that he was at home showering when the
shooting occurred.
¶ 48 Bennett responded that he believed Shaquitta had given the defendant a ride after the
shooting and that he was 100% certain that the defendant was at Oakwood Estates during the
shooting. The defendant explained that he left his cross-body bag in Terrea’s car and Shaquitta
retrieved the defendant’s bag from Belle Manor. Bennett responded that “everyone and their
mother” said that the defendant was with Shaquitta to pick up the bag. The defendant also denied
going to College Avenue on the night of the shooting.
¶ 49 The defendant further denied having a gun in his bag when Charles pulled out his gun.
Bennett claimed that the defendant had a gun and was persuaded not to use it. Bennett stated he
had extensively reviewed the video and, “you know that we have the right suspect.” The defendant
continued to deny that he had a gun in his bag, and that, “I don’t have a f*** gun on me, n*** pull
a f*** gun on me, I have the right to blow his f*** head off.” Bennett stated if that had happened,
the defendant would have acted in self-defense, but the defendant’s action of coming back later
was no longer self-defense.
¶ 50 The interrogation proceeded with Bennett then discussing that he had interviewed the
defendant’s son who at first tried to cover for the defendant. The defendant’s son then told law
enforcement that a shooting occurred, and the defendant was picked up from Oakwood Estates.
The defendant claimed that his son was not telling the truth. Bennett then commented that “when
you see the discovery, your mind is going to blow because everyone else’s story matches to a tee,
except for yours.” Bennett also stated that he received an arrest warrant for three counts of
attempted murder where he had to take evidence to a prosecutor and show that this occurred to get
15 the warrant. The defendant continued to deny that his son picked him up from Oakwood Estates.
Bennett countered that Shaquitta picked the defendant up from Oakwood a second time and the
defendant put his hand up to his mouth. Bennett then laughed and stated that, “you get all nervous
whenever I say something.” Bennett then stated that three people were shot and could have died
and that it was not a joke. He further commented that the defendant was “lying about the small
things that makes you do, zero credibility.”
¶ 51 Bennett questioned the defendant on whether he had a phone with him on the night of the
shooting. The defendant explained that he gave his phone away and that he had been charged with
crimes in the past. The defendant claimed that he got rid of his clothes that night because he was
told to, but he did not discard everything. He kept his shoes and the clothes he wore to the
Cardinals’ baseball game. He also claimed that he did not remember what he was wearing on
September 8. Bennett insinuated during the interview that the defendant’s DNA would be found
on an item shown in a photograph that was not clearly visible in the video.
¶ 52 The defendant claimed that everyone lied but he knew what he did. Bennett responded that
he had “multiple people telling stories that were corroborated by overwhelming evidence, i.e.,
videos and other people’s statements and the physical evidence and the things like that.” The
defendant stated that they did not know what happened that night and mentioned stories that he
heard from that night and no one knew what happened on September 8, 2021. Bennett commented
that “if I were in your spot, I would not want to sit in front of 12 jurors.”
¶ 53 Bennett took a break and left the room. When Bennett returned, he handed the defendant a
fresh cup of coffee. He told the defendant that he had reviewed a video and witness statements
during the break, and there was “no doubt” that the defendant went back out to Oakwood Estates.
He asked the defendant to explain why he returned to Oakwood Estates to understand the
16 defendant’s mindset. Bennett asked how the defendant would respond to a video showing him at
Oakwood Estates that night and asked about a video of Shaquitta returning to Oakwood Estates to
pick someone up. The defendant denied that Shaquitta picked him up from Oakwood Estates.
Bennett responded, “I’m telling you that’s what she did, to come pick you up, is why she came
back to Oakwood.” The defendant denied that a shooting occurred while he was at Oakwood
Estates.
¶ 54 Bennett questioned the defendant further about getting rid of his phone. Bennett stated that,
“it seems like you took a lot of drastic steps to avoid detection by the police for something you
didn’t do.” Bennett asked why the defendant gave Shaquitta his iPhone and “told her to get rid of
it,” and he told the defendant that his iPhone was in the evidence locker. Bennett showed the
defendant a photograph of a phone, claiming it was the defendant’s phone. Bennett then told the
defendant that his location history was on the cell phone and asked the defendant to respond to the
cell phone data showing that he was in Oakwood Estates for a second time, during the shooting.
The defendant indicated that his phone would show that Terrea took the defendant home and he
was at home during the time of the shooting. Bennett countered that Terrea took him to College
Avenue and that defendant needed to “start processing this in your head and know that we have
this whole thing pieced together on camera.” During the interview, the defendant mentioned that
he knew where the surveillance cameras were located at Oakwood Estates.
¶ 55 Bennett additionally made comments theorizing the defendant’s motive. Bennett stated that
the defendant had returned because he “got a gun pulled on” him. Bennett believed that the
defendant went back to Oakwood Estates because he was “not going to be f*** disrespected like
that, which is totally f*** understandable, I get that. I’d be f*** pissed. Somebody’s f*** with
your girl, mother*** are pulling gun on you, you don’t have a chance to react right then and there.”
17 Bennett additionally stated that people will assume that when he gets “picked up by his girlfriend
right f*** 100 yards from the f*** Oakwood, yes, they’re going to assume that, that’s why I’m
going to assume that. Because your girlfriend and your f*** child pick you up.” The defendant
maintained that Shaquitta was lying. Bennett then asked for the defendant’s explanation of why he
went back out to Oakwood and that the defendant can “roll the m*** dice” on whether people
believe his story over the witnesses. During this exchange, the defendant was drinking the coffee
that Bennett refilled during the break.
¶ 56 At the end of the interview, Bennett and the defendant discussed whether it would have
been acceptable for the defendant to shoot someone if a gun was pulled on him. The defendant
claimed that he did not understand why someone pulled a gun on him, and he would have “shot
the f*** out of him” if he had a gun on him at that time. Bennett suggested that the defendant went
to get a gun and came back. Bennett asked the defendant if he thought that the man who pulled his
gun on the defendant “deserved to get shot.” The defendant referred to the shooting as “karma”
and that the man knew that he deserved it. He added that people should not play around with guns
or put their hands on a woman. The defendant also stated that “I used to punch dudes in the f***
face just because I used to be gangster.” He also said that he was “totally against” pulling a gun on
someone. Bennett stated that the issue was that “he did not shoot him right then and there.” The
defendant maintained that he never shot anyone.
¶ 57 After the defendant’s video interview was played for the jury, Bennett testified by
highlighting multiple statements that the defendant made during the interview. Bennett testified
that the defendant had shut down his Facebook Messenger account after the shooting; after the
fight in Oakwood, the defendant left with Terrea and Lajuane; and the defendant claimed that they
dropped him off on Ervay Street in Alton, Illinois. Bennett indicated that the defendant gave
18 inconsistent statements about picking up a bag from Terrea at Belle Manor because he had claimed
that he picked up the bag and later stated that someone else picked up the bag for him. The
defendant also gave inconsistent answers regarding whether he went to a house on College Avenue
on September 8, and he went back and forth on whether he discarded his clothing from the night
of the shooting. Bennett additionally noted that the defendant said he knew where the cameras
were located in Oakwood Estates, and that the people deserved to be shot “if they pulled out a gun,
or something to that affect.”
¶ 58 On cross-examination, Bennett testified that he had not seen the defendant on video in
Oakwood Estates after the defendant left with Terrea. Bennett testified that there was no DNA
found on the sweatshirt that was recovered. Bennett acknowledged that Terrea and Lajuane had
not told the entire truth during their interviews prior to the defendant’s interview.
¶ 59 Daniel Vassar testified that he lived on College Avenue with Jonathan Lucas and he knew
the defendant. The defendant kept personal items at the house on College Avenue. Vassar was not
home on the evening of September 8, 2021; he was in St. Louis, Missouri, with Lucas. Vassar
testified that the defendant called him on September 8, 2021, and asked to speak to Lucas. Vassar
testified that he heard the defendant tell Lucas, “that there was an altercation in Oakwood and that
the defendant had left and came back and shot some people.” The defendant told Lucas that the
defendant had placed the gun inside the house on College Avenue, and Lucas told the defendant
to get it. Vassar testified that they did not want the gun at their residence. Vassar additionally
testified that on September 13, 2021, he told law enforcement about this conversation.
¶ 60 Brian Hapack testified that he was a forensic biologist and employed by the Illinois State
Police in the crime lab. Hapack attempted to extract a DNA profile from a dark-colored hooded
sweatshirt. However, there was “very little information in the mixture of DNA profile” and he was
19 unable to make any determinations as to whether a specific person had worn the hooded sweatshirt.
On cross-examination, Hapack testified that it was possible that a woman had worn the hooded
sweatshirt as he was unable to make any determinations.
¶ 61 Detective Bennett was recalled as a witness by the State. He testified that he had observed
that the timestamp on the surveillance footage from Oakwood Estates was 2 minutes and 34
seconds behind the actual time. The defendant’s initial arrival time of 10:49 p.m. at Oakwood
Estates was captured by the surveillance camera. An LPR camera in front of Oakwood Estates
captured the license plate of a vehicle which dropped off the defendant, and that vehicle was owned
by Shaquitta. At approximately 10:50 p.m., the defendant was involved in a verbal argument, and
the video footage depicted the defendant “grabbing in a bag.” The defendant left Oakwood
Housing Complex at approximately 10:54 p.m. with Terrea. The LPR system was unable to capture
the license plates of the vehicle that Terrea and the defendant got into. Based on the surveillance
video, Bennett believed that Terrea dropped the defendant off on Toledo Avenue at 11:06 p.m. as
the surveillance video had captured a dark figure walking after Terrea returned to Oakwood
Estates. Bennett additionally identified the muzzle flash from the shooting on the surveillance
video and concluded that the shooting occurred at 11:18 p.m.
¶ 62 Bennett testified that he had obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s phone records.
A certificate of authenticity was attached to the AT&T phone records. The certificate referred to
the Federal Rules of Evidence, not Illinois law, and the certificate did not contain language that
the certification was signed under oath. The AT&T records were admitted without objection.
¶ 63 The State questioned Bennett on multiple phone calls using those AT&T records. Bennett
testified that the defendant had called Shaquitta Watkins before he was dropped off in Oakwood
Estates. A few minutes after the shooting, the defendant made an outgoing call to Terrea, followed
20 by a call to Shaquitta. Bennett testified that Shaquitta picked the defendant up from behind
Oakwood, shortly after he called her, and there was a video of her vehicle at Oakwood. Bennett
further testified that the defendant had claimed that he was at home on Ervay Street when the
phone calls were made. Bennett had provided the phone records to an expert in digital forensics to
extract location data from the phone calls.
¶ 64 Tim Lawrence testified that he was a detective sergeant with the Madison County Sheriff’s
Office. Lawrence’s curriculum vitae was admitted into evidence, and he was qualified as an expert
in the area of historical cell site analysis. Lawrence drafted a report that included multiple maps
based on the AT&T data provided by Bennett. The maps highlighted a general area of where the
defendant’s cell phone could have been located based on the cell tower information. The AT&T
data placed the defendant in downtown St. Louis on September 8, 2021, hours before the shooting.
Then, the defendant travelled to the Alton, Illinois, area where he remained from 10:41 p.m. until
1:12 a.m. on September 9, 2021, which was the time of the last data point that Lawrence received.
Lawrence’s report was admitted into evidence over the defendant’s objection.
¶ 65 Based on the cell tower information obtained from the time when calls were placed,
Lawrence testified to specific places where the defendant could have been located and when the
defendant changed locations. The defendant objected to Lawrence’s testimony regarding the
defendant’s location, which the circuit court overruled. Lawrence additionally explained that the
AT&T phone records only included calls where the device connected to a cell phone tower. Calls
made through Facebook Messenger were not included in the phone records. Specifically, the
defendant’s location was not determined during the 11:14 p.m., 11:15 p.m., or 11:17 p.m. time
periods, as Facebook calls would not have connected to an AT&T cell phone tower. Lawrence
21 further testified that it was not possible for the defendant’s cell phone to have remained on Ervay
Street all night because the records demonstrated that the device had moved around the cell tower.
¶ 66 On cross-examination, Lawrence testified that he was unaware of how many cell phone
towers were located in Alton, Illinois. Lawrence could not determine whether a cell phone was
moving based on the AT&T data and he was unable to use the data to determine the exact location
of the defendant’s cell phone. Lawrence agreed that the defendant’s cell phone could have been
located within “a million different places” within the shaded area on the maps created using the
AT&T data. Lawrence explained that a cell phone could connect to a tower in an area greater than
5 miles, although it would be “very rare” to connect outside of 10 miles. Additionally, a cell phone
connects to a tower based on signal strength. He also indicated it was possible that a person could
connect to the opposite side of a tower, but it was highly unlikely.
¶ 67 The State rested after Lawrence’s testimony concluded. The defendant then moved for a
directed verdict and argued that the State failed to prove every element of the offense. He claimed
that the evidence was inadequate where there were no eyewitnesses or physical evidence which
connected the defendant to the crimes. The circuit court denied the defendant’s motion.
¶ 68 The defendant recalled Detective Bennett who testified that he interviewed Terrea twice.
She provided inconsistent statements. Bennett also interviewed Shaquitta for five hours, and
several other individuals. Bennett had attempted to obtain security footage from the residence on
College Avenue but was unable to view the password protected video surveillance from that
residence.
¶ 69 Anthony Glen testified that he lived in Oakwood Estates. On the evening of September 8,
2021, he was at home and asleep. Glen’s wife woke him to tell him about the shooting. Glen saw
emergency vehicle lights from his kitchen window and went outside. Someone identified Glen as
22 the shooter and a police officer detained Glen for approximately 40 minutes. The next morning,
Glen found a bullet hole in his kitchen window.
¶ 70 Howard Jones testified that he was in a relationship with Jackie and Ken was his younger
brother. On September 8, 2021, Howard was sitting in his car. Ken was arguing with Darylann and
Danyelle. The police arrived and made Howard move his car. After he moved his car to an area
close by, he heard gunshots. Howard saw people picking up shell casings that looked like rifle
shell casings. He did not know the people, but they appeared to be male.
¶ 71 Ken was recalled as a witness and questioned regarding his prior testimony that he saw the
defendant reach into a bag and display a firearm. A video of the interaction was shown to Ken,
and he was asked when the defendant had pulled out a firearm. Ken then stated that he may not
have seen the defendant display a firearm. On cross-examination by the State, Ken testified that
even though he did not see it on the video, that did not mean that it did not occur. Ken additionally
testified that he was intoxicated on September 8, 2021.
¶ 72 The defendant testified on his own behalf. The defendant stated that, on September 8, 2021,
he had been home with his son and Shaquitta when he received a Facebook Messenger video call
from Danyelle’s phone, but it was Darylann. She told the defendant that she was in Oakwood
Estates and someone tried to hit her with a bottle. The defendant asked Shaquitta for a ride to
Oakwood. When she dropped him off, he walked to the cul-de-sac area and found Darylann. She
pointed out the man who was antagonizing her. The defendant realized that there were others
around him and he was outnumbered. He did not want the situation to escalate to gun violence as
he had been shot 10 times in a prior incident at Oakwood Estates.
¶ 73 The defendant testified that he attempted to convince Darylann to leave after he saw
someone pull out a gun. Terrea then grabbed the defendant’s arm and he left with Terrea, as he
23 told Darylann to go into a nearby house. The defendant explained that he and Darylann were not
on good terms that night as they had been in a terrible argument the night before. The defendant
testified that he was irritated with her because she had blown his whole night. The defendant asked
Lajuane to drive him to College Avenue because he wanted to get a key and find Lucas, who was
not home at the time. After going to the residence, Lajuane then dropped the defendant off a couple
of blocks from College, which is in the vicinity of Oakwood Estates, because he did not want
Lajuane to know where he was staying. The defendant denied ever returning to Oakwood. He later
asked Shaquitta to pick him up, and while he was with her, he was on the phone with Darylann,
who reported the shooting.
¶ 74 The defendant insisted that Darylann called again from Danyelle’s phone and told the
defendant that the person was still “messing” with her. The defendant asked Darylann to go outside
to see if he left his bag because he did not know where it was. The defendant indicated it had
personal items in it. While he was on the phone with her, she told the defendant that someone was
shooting at her. The defendant claimed that he did not hear any gunshots. The defendant
additionally testified that he did not know the victims in the shooting.
¶ 75 The defendant also tried on the sweatshirt collected in evidence. He claimed it was a “girl’s
sweatshirt,” and it was too small for him. The defendant stated, “I’m surprised I can get in it at
all.” After the defendant rested, the parties presented closing arguments.
¶ 76 The jury was given instructions for the attempt murder charge that included language “that
the defendant performed an act which constituted a substantial step toward the killing of an
individual” or “that the defendant did so with the intent to kill an individual.” The names of the
victims were not included in the jury instructions.
24 ¶ 77 The jury found the defendant guilty of three counts of attempt first degree murder, three
counts of aggravated battery with a firearm, and guilty of aggravated discharge of a firearm. The
jury additionally found that during the commission of each of the three attempt first degree
murders, the defendant personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused great bodily harm.
¶ 78 On April 17, 2023, the defendant filed a series of pro se motions requesting a new trial. He
additionally requested the appointment of counsel to assist posttrial, prior to sentencing. The circuit
court appointed counsel to represent the defendant.
¶ 79 Posttrial Motions
¶ 80 Defense counsel filed a posttrial motion on August 14, 2023, and incorporated the
defendant’s pro se posttrial filings. The motions raised arguments the defendant was not properly
admonished when he waived his right to counsel, alleged evidentiary errors at trial, speedy trial
violations, and claims of State misconduct during voir dire, closing arguments, and throughout the
trial. The circuit court held a hearing on the posttrial motions and denied each motion.
¶ 81 Sentencing
¶ 82 During the sentencing hearing, the defendant did not argue factors in mitigation. He
claimed that he was innocent of the offenses, was wrongfully convicted, and that arguing factors
in mitigation would be an acknowledgment of guilt. The defendant made a statement in allocution
where he stated that he was against violent crimes, that he was sorry for what had happened to the
victims, and he maintained his innocence.
¶ 83 The State argued that the defendant’s conduct caused or threatened serious harm when he
opened fire into a crowded area. The defendant had a criminal history which included two felonies
related to the manufacturing or delivering of cocaine, and a misdemeanor for disorderly conduct
and resisting arrest.
25 ¶ 84 The State suggested that the minimum sentence that the defendant faced was 93 years in
the IDOC and requested a sentence in excess of 100 years. The defendant argued that he should
receive the minimum sentence on two attempt first degree murder counts of 31 years each.
¶ 85 The circuit court found that the defendant was required to be sentenced on three counts of
attempt first degree murder. The circuit court additionally found that the defendant committed a
“very horrific, violent act,” he had a significant criminal history, and that he was on supervised
release at the time of the offense.
¶ 86 The defendant faced sentences of 6 to 30 years on each of the attempt first degree murder
charges. The circuit court sentenced the defendant to 20 years with a 25-year firearm enhancement
on each of the three counts, to be served consecutively, for a total of 135 years in the IDOC. The
remaining counts merged with the three attempt first degree murder counts. This appeal followed.
¶ 87 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 88 On appeal, the defendant argues that the circuit court failed to properly admonish him prior
to accepting his waiver of counsel; the jury instructions for attempt murder were improper as the
State failed to provide notice of proceeding under a theory of transferred intent; the cumulative
effect of errors deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial; the defendant was deprived of a
fair trial where the State engaged in pervasive prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire, closing
arguments, and that the State had taken advantage of the defendant’s pro se status; and his 135-
year sentence is excessive.
¶ 89 We first address the issue that the pro se defendant failed to preserve multiple issues on
appeal. “Where a defendant elects to proceed pro se, he is responsible for his representation and is
held to the same standards as any attorney.” People v. Richardson, 2011 IL App (4th) 100358,
26 ¶ 12. In order to preserve an error for review, a criminal defendant must raise an issue at trial and
in a posttrial motion. People v. Salamon, 2022 IL 125722, ¶ 56.
¶ 90 The defendant has sought plain error review on those issues which were not preserved.
“[T]he plain-error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when (1) 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) a
clear or obvious error occurred and that 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. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007). We reiterate that the initial step
in determining whether plain error applies is determining whether a “clear or obvious error”
occurred at trial. People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 49.
¶ 91 A. Waiver of Counsel
¶ 92 The sixth amendment to the United Stated Constitution (U.S. Const., amend.VI) guarantees
a defendant the right to the assistance of counsel in a criminal proceeding. People v. Jiles, 364 Ill.
App. 3d 320, 328 (2006). The right to counsel may be waived, if the waiver is “voluntary, knowing,
and intelligent.” Jiles, 364 Ill. App. 3d at 328. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401(a) (eff.
July 1, 1984),
“The court shall not permit a waiver of counsel by a person accused of an offense punishable by imprisonment without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands the following: (1) the nature of the charge; (2) the minimum and maximum sentence prescribed by law, including, when applicable, the penalty to which the defendant may be subjected because of prior convictions or consecutive sentences; and (3) that he has a right to counsel and, if he is indigent, to have counsel appointed for him by the court.”
27 ¶ 93 “Strict, technical compliance with Rule 401(a) is not always required; rather, substantial
compliance will be sufficient to effectuate a valid waiver if the record indicates that the waiver
was otherwise made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and the admonishments the
defendant received did not prejudice his rights.” Jiles, 364 Ill. App. 3d at 329. “Substantial
compliance occurs when any failure to fully provide admonishments does not prejudice defendant
because either: (1) the absence of a detail from the admonishments did not impede defendant from
giving a knowing and intelligent waiver or (2) defendant possessed a degree of knowledge or
sophistication that excused the lack of admonition.” People v. Pike, 2016 IL App (1st) 122626,
¶ 112. “The interpretation of a supreme court rule is a question of law that we review de novo.”
People v. Campbell, 224 Ill. 2d 80, 84 (2006).
¶ 94 When advising the defendant on the nature of charge against him and the consequences,
the circuit court is not required to state all facts which may or may not constitute the offense. Pike,
2016 IL App (1st) 122626, ¶ 117. In Pike, the defendant was informed that the nature of the charges
was “armed robbery with a firearm” and “attempted residential burglary,” which was sufficient.
Pike, 2016 IL App (1st) 122626, ¶ 118.
¶ 95 The defendant seeks plain error review on this issue. The right to counsel is fundamental
and will not lightly be deemed waived. Jiles, 364 Ill. App. 3d at 328. Plain error review applies to
whether the defendant was denied this substantial right. Jiles, 364 Ill. App. 3d at 328.
¶ 96 Here, the circuit court considered whether the defendant had waived his right to counsel
on two occasions. During the hearing on the defendant’s initial motion to proceed pro se, he was
informed of the nature of the charges, the applicable sentencing ranges for each charge, and that
he was facing consecutive sentences because there were three victims. The circuit court
additionally explained the defendant’s right to counsel. The defendant indicated that he understood
28 the admonishments. The record demonstrates that the circuit court thoroughly admonished the
defendant during the September 29, 2022, hearing.
¶ 97 The defendant argues that the circuit court failed to substantially comply with Rule 401(a)
the second time he waived his right to counsel. A reviewing court will look “to the overall context
of the proceedings, including the defendant’s conduct following the defendant’s request to
represent himself.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Ware, 407 Ill. App. 3d 315, 340
(2011). In deciding whether a defendant’s waiver of counsel was valid, the dispositive issue is
whether the waiver of counsel was made knowingly, understandingly, and effectively in light of
the entire record. People v. Gilkey, 263 Ill. App. 3d 706, 711 (1994).
¶ 98 After several months of proceeding pro se, the defendant asked for the appointment of an
attorney. Shortly after the defendant’s request, a public defender was appointed and met with the
defendant for over two hours. After one meeting, the defendant’s counsel filed a motion to
withdraw because the defendant wanted to proceed pro se. The circuit court considered that it had
previously explained the admonishments to the defendant and found that the defendant understood
his right to counsel, understood the gravity of the charges and the possible sentences for the
charges. The circuit court also verified that the defendant was not under the influence of drugs or
alcohol. The defendant further confirmed that he spent time considering his decision after meeting
with his appointed attorney.
¶ 99 We consider the entirety of the record in determining whether the defendant was properly
admonished and whether the circuit court substantially complied with Rule 401. See Ware, 407
Ill. App. at 347. We find that the defendant made a knowing, voluntary waiver of his right to
counsel and there was no error. Because there was no error, we do not consider plain error.
29 ¶ 100 B. Jury Instructions
¶ 101 The defendant also argues that the State failed to provide notice of a transferred intent
argument and the State’s rebuttal argument addressing this theory conflicted with the jury
instructions. The defendant essentially argues that the jury was provided with improper
instructions for the charge of attempt murder. “Whether jury instructions fail to accurately reflect
the applicable law is subject to de novo review.” People v. Willingham, 2020 IL App (1st) 162250,
¶ 60.
¶ 102 The defendant concedes that he did not preserve this error on appeal and seeks plain error
review. “[F]or either prong of the doctrine to apply, there must have been some error in the first
place.” Willingham, 2020 IL App (1st) 162250, ¶ 60.
¶ 103 “A person commits the offense of attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense,
he or she does any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.”
720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) (West 2024). In order for the State to obtain a conviction of attempt murder, a
specific intent to kill must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Homes, 274 Ill. App.
3d 612, 622 (1995). The intent to kill a particular person is not required. Willingham, 2020 IL App
(1st) 162250, ¶ 68. The intent to kill can be demonstrated through the surrounding circumstances,
such as the nature of the attack, the use of a lethal weapon, and the act of shooting at or near
someone with either malicious intent or complete disregard for human life. Homes, 274 Ill. App.
3d at 622-23. “The requisite intent has routinely been found in cases where a defendant shoots
someone while firing into a crowd, even if he or she was not aiming at the person who was shot.”
Willingham, 2020 IL App (1st) 162250, ¶ 68.
¶ 104 Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions (IPI) shall be used in criminal cases, unless the circuit
court determines that the IPI Criminal instruction “does not accurately state the law.” Ill. S. Ct. R.
30 451 (eff. Apr. 8, 2013). The attempt murder jury instruction generally does not specify the name
of the victim. Willingham, 2020 IL App (1st) 162250, ¶ 63. Furthermore, “the IPI instructions do
not say that the trial court should ordinarily fill in the name of the attempted-murder victim—even
when there are multiple victims of the defendant’s alleged shooting.” People v. Edmondson, 2018
IL App (1st) 151381, ¶ 67.
¶ 105 In this case, multiple shots were fired into a group of people, and three individuals were
seriously injured. The jury instructions did not specify the person injured. Rather, the instructions
included the language “with the intent to kill an individual” which is consistent with the IPI
Criminal instructions. Thus, the names of Charles, Jackie, and Troy were not required to be
included in the jury instructions as the intent to kill a specific person is not required. As such, we
find no error, as the jury was properly instructed on attempt murder. As such, there is no plain
error.
¶ 106 C. Plain Error
¶ 107 A defendant has a due process right to a fair trial guaranteed by both the U.S. Constitution
and the Illinois Constitution. U.S. Const., amend. XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2. The harmless
error doctrine allows us to dispose of claims of error that have a de minimis impact on the outcome
of the case. People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 138 (2000). Although individual trial errors may not
require a reversal, multiple errors may have the cumulative effect of denying the defendant a fair
trial. People v. Speight, 153 Ill. 2d 365, 376 (1992). “When a defendant’s right to a fair trial has
been denied, this court must take corrective action so that we may preserve the integrity of the
judicial process.” Blue, 189 Ill. 2d at 138.
¶ 108 The defendant raises multiple claims of error. The defendant’s claims include that the
circuit court abused its discretion by allowing the State to admit AT&T phone records and cell site
31 data analysis where the records lacked a proper self-authenticating certification; by introducing
the defendant’s entire videotaped interview with law enforcement into evidence; by allowing a
witness to testify to the defendant’s credibility based on his behavior during his interview with law
enforcement; and by allowing improper lay witness testimony about the technology behind
Facebook Messenger’s interface. The defendant argues that these cumulative errors deprived the
defendant of a fair trial.
¶ 109 1. Certified Records
¶ 110 The defendant did not object to the admission of the AT&T records at trial and he did not
raise this issue in a posttrial motion. We apply plain error review to the issue of whether the AT&T
records were properly admitted as this issue was not preserved on appeal.
¶ 111 “Hearsay evidence is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter
asserted, and is generally inadmissible unless it falls within a recognized exception.” People v.
Cloutier, 178 Ill. 2d 141, 154 (1997). For the business record exception to apply, “the party seeking
to admit a business record has the burden of laying an adequate foundation for it, which includes
showing: (1) that the record was made as a memorandum or record of the act; (2) that the record
was made in the regular course of business; and (3) that it was the regular course of the business
to make such a record at the time of the act or within a reasonable time thereafter.” People v. Nixon,
2015 IL App (1st) 130132, ¶ 110. An adequate foundation must be established by “the testimony
of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that complies with Rule 902(11).”
Ill. R. Evid. 803(6) (eff. Jan. 25, 2023).
¶ 112 Certified records may be admissible under the Illinois Rules of Evidence, if
“[t]he original or a duplicate of a record of regularly conducted activity that would be admissible under Rule 803(6) if accompanied by a written certification of its custodian or other qualified person that the record
32 (A) was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of these matters; (B) was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and (C) was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.
The word ‘certification’ as used in this subsection means with respect to a domestic record, a written declaration under oath subject to the penalty of perjury ***.” Ill. R. Evid. 902(11) (eff. Sept. 28, 2018).
¶ 113 The State acknowledges that the certification for the phone records did not strictly comply
with Illinois Rule of Evidence 902(11), as there was no certification from a qualified AT&T
records custodian that the certification was made under oath. Accordingly, the State concedes that
the circuit court erred by admitting the AT&T records and the related testimony. We find clear and
obvious error in admitting the AT&T records.
¶ 114 The State argues that the admission of the phone records was harmless error given the
overwhelming properly admitted evidence of the defendant’s guilt. “Errors reviewable under the
first prong of the plain error rule are the type of errors that are subject to harmless error analysis,
and a defendant must establish prejudice resulting from the error to excuse his forfeiture of such
an error.” People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 23. We, therefore, consider whether 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.” See Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 565.
¶ 115 Detectives Bennett and Lawrence both provided testimony based on the AT&T data. The
State established a timeline of the defendant’s movements on September 8, 2021, based on
information received from the AT&T data. Lawrence created maps of the defendant’s general
vicinity based on cell phone tower usage, yet his testimony pinpointed the defendant to a specific
location based on the general data that had not been properly certified. This testimony was
prejudicial to the defendant. We consider that the firearm was not recovered, the State did not
33 present eyewitness testimony identifying the defendant as the shooter, and the identity of the
shooter was not clearly visible on the surveillance video. Multiple witnesses had credibility issues.
Both Terrea and Lajuane entered into agreements in unrelated criminal cases in exchange for their
testimony and had provided conflicting statements to law enforcement. As the evidence in this
case was closely balanced, we find that the circuit court erred in admitting the AT&T data.
Therefore, we find plain error.
¶ 116 2. Law Enforcement Interview Video and Related Testimony
¶ 117 The defendant additionally argues that admitting the video of the defendant being
interviewed by law enforcement and the related testimony regarding the defendant’s credibility
was also error. Once again, the defendant concedes that he failed to properly preserve the error,
and requests plain error review. We consider whether the circuit court abused its discretion by
admitting the defendant’s law enforcement interview as the defendant preserved this issue. “The
admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of a trial court, and a reviewing court will not
reverse the trial court absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion.” People v. Becker, 239 Ill.
2d 215, 234 (2010).
¶ 118 Because a police officer is recognized as an authority figure, opinion statements regarding
the ultimate question of fact are considered prejudicial. People v. Hardimon, 2017 IL App (3d)
120772, ¶ 35. A statement by a police officer is admissible, however, if it is necessary to
demonstrate the effect of the statement on the defendant or to explain a response by the defendant.
Hardimon, 2017 IL App (3d) 120772, ¶ 35. An officer’s testimony or statement during a video
recorded interrogation is ultimately subject to relevancy requirements and should be excluded
where its probative value is outweighed by any prejudicial effect. Hardimon, 2017 IL App (3d)
120772, ¶ 35.
34 ¶ 119 The defendant’s law enforcement interview video contained numerous opinion statements
by Detective Bennett of the defendant’s guilt. Bennett stated that he was “100% certain” that the
defendant was in Oakwood Estates during the shooting, Shaquitta picked him up from Oakwood
Estates after the shooting, and that “everyone and their mother” told Bennett that the defendant
was with Shaquitta at Belle Manor. Bennett additionally stated, “you know that we have the right
suspect,” and that multiple stories were “corroborated by overwhelming evidence, i.e., videos and
other people’s statements and the physical evidence.” He further commented that they had the
“whole thing pieced together on camera.” Bennett also suggested that the defendant had a gun
during the altercation, prior to the shooting, but was talked down from using it and later returned
because a gun had been pulled on him. Bennett told the defendant that he had to take evidence to
a prosecutor and show that it occurred to obtain the defendant’s arrest warrant and insinuated that
their investigation had proven the defendant’s guilt in order to obtain an arrest warrant. The
multiple statements by Bennett of the defendant’s guilt had little relevance and were highly
prejudicial.
¶ 120 The defendant additionally argues that the video included improper statements of other
crimes or bad acts. “The erroneous admission of evidence of other crimes carries a high risk of
prejudice and ordinarily calls for reversal.” People v. Lindgren, 79 Ill. 2d 129, 140 (1980). If the
other crimes evidence is only relevant to establish the defendant’s propensity to commit crime,
then it is inadmissible. People v. Manning, 182 Ill. 2d 193, 213 (1998). Such evidence can be
overpersuasive and lead a jury to convict simply because they believe the defendant is a bad person
deserving punishment. Manning, 182 Ill. 2d at 213-14.
¶ 121 Other crimes evidence is admissible when the evidence is relevant to establish a material
question. Manning, 182 Ill. 2d at 214. The circuit court must weigh the probative value of other
35 crimes evidence against its prejudicial effect and may exclude the evidence if the probative value
is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect. Manning, 182 Ill. 2d at 214.
¶ 122 Prior to receiving his Miranda warning, the defendant offered that he had been kicked out
of high school and was sent to a military academy. The video also included an unredacted
statement by the defendant that in the past he had punched people in the face because it was
“gangster.” The defendant additionally acknowledged that he had been charged with crimes in the
past and had provided a story of gun violence. Those statements were overly prejudicial, and not
relevant to the charged crime.
¶ 123 We additionally consider whether Bennett’s “human lie detector” testimony regarding the
defendant’s behavior was improper. In general, it is improper to question a witness on the
credibility of another witness. People v. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215, 236 (2010). Credibility
determinations are made by the trier of fact. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d at 236.
¶ 124 In People v. Henderson, 394 Ill. App. 3d 747 (2009), the Fourth District addressed “human
lie detector” testimony. In that case, a police officer testified at trial that the defendant’s vague
responses and body language during an interrogation indicated deception. Henderson, 394 Ill. App.
3d at 752-54. The testimony was deemed inadmissible as the “human lie detector” testimony does
not comply with “the fundamental rule that one witness should not be allowed to express his
opinion as to another witness’s credibility.” Henderson, 394 Ill. App. 3d at 754.
¶ 125 In this case, Bennett testified that the defendant was lying during his interview with law
enforcement based on his body language and actions. Specifically, he believed that the defendant
would put the coffee cup to his mouth when he would provide an answer that was inconsistent
with the evidence. He additionally opined that the defendant would look directly at the camera
when he was lying. The recorded interview also contained opinion statements by Bennett that the
36 defendant was not being truthful based on his body language. Bennett pointed out the defendant’s
nervousness when confronted with a conflicting story and stated that, “lying about the small
things” gave him “zero credibility.” Bennett commented that the defendant could roll the dice on
whether people believed his story and that “if I were in your spot, I would not want to sit in front
of 12 jurors.”
¶ 126 The defendant’s video that was over two hours long contained numerous opinion
statements of the defendant’s guilt, other crimes or bad acts, and statements challenging the
defendant’s credibility. After the video was played, Bennett was allowed to further comment on
the defendant’s credibility. The probative value of the video was substantially outweighed by the
prejudicial effect where the defendant had not confessed to the charged crimes. The circuit court
abused its discretion by allowing into evidence the lengthy law enforcement video and allowing
Bennett’s “human lie detector” testimony on the defendant’s credibility.
¶ 127 The cumulative effect of the admission of the AT&T data, including the geolocation data,
as well as the extensive commentary by law enforcement in the defendant’s video interview, and
the improper testimony regarding the defendant’s credibility, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
Therefore, we must reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 128 Although we are reversing the defendant’s conviction, we find that the evidence was
sufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each count. We therefore
find that no double-jeopardy violation will impede a new trial. People v. Hale, 2012 IL App (4th)
100949, ¶ 26. Furthermore, we do not reach a decision on the defendant’s guilt that would be
binding on retrial. Hale, 2012 IL App (4th) 100949, ¶ 26. In light of the our decision to remand
for a new trial, we need not address the remaining issues that the defendant raised on appeal.
37 ¶ 129 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 130 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand for
further proceedings.
¶ 131 Reversed and remanded.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2026 IL App (5th) 230726-U, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-foster-illappct-2026.