People v. Glover

2021 IL App (1st) 181934-U

Opinion

2021 IL App (1st) 181934-U No. 1-18-1934 Order filed March 31, 2021 Fourth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 13 CR 13633 ) CAMARI GLOVER, ) Honorable ) Timothy J. Joyce, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lampkin and Martin concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Defendant’s conviction for first degree murder affirmed where the record reveals no basis to disturb the trial court’s findings that the State’s witnesses were credible, and defendant’s alternative suspect theory and alibi witnesses were not credible.

¶2 Following a bench trial, defendant Camari Glover was convicted of first degree murder

(720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2010)) and sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment. On appeal,

defendant contends the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as the testimony

from the State’s witnesses was not credible. Defendant argues that he presented credible No. 1-18-1934

eyewitness testimony identifying another man as the shooter and credible alibi testimony that he

was not present at the scene of the shooting. We affirm.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 Defendant was charged with six counts of first degree murder for the shooting death of

Nicholas Jackson. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion in limine to introduce evidence that an

alternative suspect, Zedeki Mobley, committed the murder. Defendant alleged he had been

misidentified as the gunman and noted that a firearm was not recovered in this case. Defendant

stated that Michael Harlan would testify he observed Mobley shoot Jackson. Defendant further

stated that a few weeks after the murder, Mobley committed an aggravated vehicular hijacking and

was arrested. Mobley pled guilty. Defendant asked to introduce evidence from Mobley’s offense,

specifically his arrest photograph and identification by his victim, to corroborate Harlan’s

testimony identifying Mobley as the gunman who shot Jackson. The State objected, arguing the

evidence was not relevant to Jackson’s murder. The trial court questioned the relevancy of the

evidence, stating that it only established Mobley had a firearm. The court, however,

“provisionally” granted defendant’s motion and allowed him to present testimony from Mobley’s

victim.

¶5 State’s Case

¶6 Wanda Jackson

¶7 At trial, Wanda Jackson testified that she last saw her son, Jackson, on the evening of

September 4, 2011, after he got off work. Later that evening, Wanda 1 learned Jackson had been

1 We refer to Wanda Jackson by her first name to avoid confusion because she shares the same last name with the victim.

-2- No. 1-18-1934

shot and taken to the hospital. After arriving at the hospital, Wanda learned Jackson had died.

¶8 On cross-examination, Wanda testified that on September 4, she lived in a rowhouse in the

600 block of East 133rd Street in the Altgeld Gardens complex. Jackson’s girlfriend, Mary Wright,

lived across the street. That afternoon, defendant’s mother, later identified as Marquita Dixon,

came to Wright’s house to confront Wanda. Defendant’s sister, Caprice, 2 had formerly dated

Wanda’s son, Randy Jackson, and Wanda did not want Caprice in her house. Wanda and Dixon

argued. Afterwards, Wanda and Wright walked to Dixon’s house, about six houses from Wright’s

house. Wanda later learned Wright was maced. Wright complained of having mace in her eyes,

which were red.

¶9 That evening, Wanda observed Jackson walking through the gangway after he had gotten

off work. She saw one or two men “jump” Jackson. When more men joined the fight, Wanda got

“in the middle of it” and tried to pull the men off Jackson. Wanda did not recall being knocked to

the ground during the fight. After the fight ended, Wanda heard gunshots. She also testified that

she did not recall when she heard the shots and acknowledged she had been drinking that day.

Wanda noticed defendant “out there” during the fight and when the shooting occurred. Wanda

called Dixon that evening and asked her why defendant killed her son.

¶ 10 On September 7, 2011, Wanda met with Chicago police detective Marc Delfavero. Wanda

did not recall telling Delfavero that Jackson was upset because someone maced Wright. She told

Delfavero some men jumped her son but she did not know their names. She did not recall telling

Delfavero that Quinton was one of the men who jumped Jackson. She did not know Quinton. On

June 18, 2013, Wanda met with Delfavero, Detective Michael Malinowski, and an assistant State’s

2 Caprice’s last name does not appear in the record.

-3- No. 1-18-1934

attorney. Wanda did not recall telling them that she did not see the shooter as she was knocked to

the ground during the altercation. She told the detectives she saw defendant on a surveillance

video.

¶ 11 Mary Wright

¶ 12 Mary Wright testified that on September 4, 2011, she lived in the 600 block of East 133rd

Street in the Altgeld Gardens complex. She was separated from her husband, Eddie Wright, and

was dating Jackson. Despite the separation, Wright, Eddie Wright, and Jackson were all good

friends. On the day in question, Wright had argued with some women and someone sprayed mace

in Wright’s face. Someone had called Jackson and told him what happened. About 10:30 p.m.,

Jackson arrived at the complex with Eddie Wright. At that time, Wright was inside her house

rinsing off the mace. When Wright went outside, Jackson was already engaged in a fistfight with

defendant’s brother, Nate. 3 The streetlights in the complex were bright, and Wright could see what

was happening. The mace was not in her eyes and it did not prevent her from seeing what was

taking place. Several people gathered around the fight. Wright then heard three gunshots fired

“very close” from where she was standing. She then noticed Jackson lying on the ground. Wright

approached Jackson and looked around to see who fired the shots. Wright then observed defendant

“skipping down the street” with a weapon in his hand. She watched defendant until she could no

longer see him. She kept watching him as she did not know if he was going to turn back and shoot

at everyone else.

¶ 13 Wright had known defendant for three years prior to the shooting. His family lived four

houses from her house and she would see defendant every day. She identified defendant in court.

3 Nate’s last name does not appear in the record.

-4- No. 1-18-1934

On the day of the shooting, defendant’s hair was braided or twisted on one side and the other side

was not styled. No one else at the scene wore the same hairstyle. Defendant was wearing blue jeans

and a black sweater. Jackson was transported to Christ Hospital where he died. At the hospital,

Wright informed the police of what had happened and gave them defendant’s name. On September

7, 2011, Wright viewed a photo array and identified defendant “right away” as the man she

observed running away with a weapon. The police showed Wright a video of the shooting. Wright

testified that the video was a true and accurate recording of the incident as she remembered it. She,

however, asked not to view it in court.

¶ 14 On cross-examination, Wright acknowledged Jackson was upset she had been maced. The

mace was on Wright’s nose, lips, and chin. She was not sprayed in her eyes and did not tell Wanda

it was in her eyes. Wright told the police she was maced in the face. Jackson and Nate were the

only men fighting. No one else joined the fight, but a number of people crowded around them.

Wright did not observe anyone shooting a firearm as the crowd blocked her view. She was standing

outside her door when she heard the gunshots. When the shots were fired the crowd quickly

dispersed which opened the area and allowed Wright to see everything. After the shooting, Wright

squatted down on the ground next to Jackson. From that vantage point she observed defendant

skipping away from her about three to four houses down the street. Although defendant was

running away from her, he did turn his face and looked back towards her for a second or two.

Defendant then pulled his hood over his head and fled. Wright acknowledged she was interviewed

by defense counsel and defense investigator Rosa Silva on April 21, 2017. Wright denied telling

them that the person wearing the hood never faced her and never ran past her. She also denied

telling them she lied to police about being maced in the face.

-5- No. 1-18-1934

¶ 15 Dushaunda Jackson

¶ 16 Dushaunda Jackson acknowledged she had been convicted in 2008 for manufacturing and

delivering cannabis. On September 4, Dushaunda 4 was at the Altgeld Gardens complex visiting

her mother-in-law, Wanda. Dushaunda was married to Wanda’s son, Randy. At some point,

Dushaunda went to the store. When she returned, she learned Wright had been in an altercation.

Jackson arrived at the complex about 10:25 p.m. He asked Dushaunda who maced Wright. Some

men were leaning against a vehicle. One of those individuals approached Jackson. Dushaunda did

not know the man. She told him Jackson was talking to her, not him. The man asked Jackson if his

name was Nick. Jackson replied that it was. The man struck Jackson and the two men commenced

fighting. A crowd gathered around the fight. Floodlights in the complex allowed Dushaunda to see

everything that occurred.

¶ 17 Dushaunda observed defendant approach the fight from her left side. She saw defendant’s

face. Half of his hair was braided and the other half was “just up.” Dushaunda did not observe

anyone else with the same hairstyle that evening. Defendant was wearing jeans, a white T-shirt,

and a black hoodie. She knew defendant from seeing him many occasions around the complex.

Dushaunda identified defendant in court. On the evening in question, defendant stood slightly to

Dushaunda’s left and behind her shoulder. Dushaunda then heard multiple gunshots coming from

her left. None of the participants in the fight or in front of her had firearms. Dushaunda then ran to

Wanda’s house which was located about 20 feet to the right of the fight. She turned around and

observed defendant running down the street towards his mother’s house. Defendant had an object

4 We refer to Dushaunda Jackson by her first name to avoid confusion because she shares the same last name with the victim.

-6- No. 1-18-1934

in his hand, but she could not tell what it was. Jackson was lying on the ground. Dushaunda ran to

Jackson and called 911 for an ambulance.

¶ 18 Dushaunda spoke with police that evening. Two days later she spoke with Detectives

Delfavero, William Meador, Devin Jones, and Isaac Lambert at the police station. Dushaunda

identified defendant in a photo array. Defendant’s hairstyle on the night of the shooting was

different than it was in the photograph. The police showed Dushaunda a surveillance video from

the complex which she felt accurately depicted what occurred on the evening of the shooting.

Dushaunda identified herself and defendant in the video.

¶ 19 As the video played in court, Dushaunda pointed out Wright’s house. Dushaunda identified

herself standing to the left of a tree. She identified Jackson and the men fighting, both wearing

white T-shirts. Jackson was wearing light-colored pants and facing the camera. Dushaunda

identified defendant when he appeared in the left portion of the video screen. She then identified

Jackson lying on the ground.

¶ 20 On cross-examination, Dushaunda acknowledged that she did not give the 911 dispatcher

defendant’s name or description. Dushaunda’s main concern was to get an ambulance for Jackson.

The dispatcher did not ask for the shooter’s name or description. Dushaunda did not see anyone

holding a handgun or firing a weapon. She did not tell the police that she noticed defendant with a

firearm or that she observed him shoot anyone. She identified defendant in the photo array as the

person who was standing at the scene and who ran away with something in his hand. Defendant

was one of many individuals who ran from the scene following the shooting. Dushaunda ran in the

opposite direction from defendant. Dushaunda did not recall knowing anyone named Quinton. She

-7- No. 1-18-1934

did not tell Delfavero that Quinton had caused problems for her family. Nor did she tell the

detective that Jackson was fighting Quinton or that Quinton’s brother punched Jackson.

¶ 21 The trial court asked Dushaunda to watch the video again and verify which individual was

Jackson and the man he was fighting. The court also asked the prosecutor to play the video and for

Dushaunda to tell him to stop the video as soon as she observed defendant appear. She did so. The

court noted that defendant was the second person to the left of a thick tree on the left foreground

wearing a dark covering over a light T-shirt. Per the court’s direction, the prosecutor started and

stopped the video again. The court pointed to a specific person and asked Dushaunda who was that

particular individual. She testified it was defendant. Per defense counsel’s follow-up questioning,

Dushaunda acknowledged that the video did not depict all of the facial features or hairstyles of all

the individuals.

¶ 22 Tempo Gibson

¶ 23 Tempo Gibson testified that on September 4 she was at the Altgeld Gardens complex

visiting Wanda. Wanda’s son, Randy, is Gibson’s brother, and Jackson was her stepbrother.

Gibson learned Wright had been maced during an altercation. Gibson noticed Jackson arrive at the

complex with a man whom she did not know. Jackson was upset and wanted to know who maced

Wright. Jackson began physically fighting with another man Gibson did not know. Gibson was

standing about 10 feet from the fight. The streetlights were on, and she had no difficulty seeing

what occurred and was able to identify the individuals she knew and did not know. As the fight

continued, a man walked up, pointed a handgun, and fired gunshots. Gibson observed the first shot

being fired, then she ran to Wright’s house. Wright’s door was locked so she ran in the other

direction. In court, Gibson identified defendant as the shooter. She had seen defendant all day that

-8- No. 1-18-1934

day. Prior to that day she had also seen defendant around the complex, but she did not know him.

Gibson testified that on the day of the shooting, defendant wore a black hoodie with a white shirt

underneath. Half of his hair was in braids and half was an afro. After the shooting, defendant ran

down the walkway.

¶ 24 Two days later, Gibson went to the police station and told them what happened. She viewed

a photo array but was not able to identify anyone. On June 19, 2013, Gibson viewed a live lineup

and identified defendant. Prior to viewing the lineup, Gibson signed an acknowledgement that she

was not required to identify anyone, and that the suspect may or may not be in the lineup. Gibson

noted that defendant’s hairstyle was different at the time of the lineup than it was on the night of

the shooting. After Gibson viewed the lineup, the police showed her a photograph which she

identified as defendant. Gibson signed the photograph and wrote on it “This is how Camari Glover

look [sic] the day I seen him shoot Nick Jackson.” In the photograph, defendant’s hair was partially

braided. The police displayed for Gibson a video that was a true and accurate recording of the

shooting. They also asked her to view a photograph taken from the video in which she identified

herself running towards Wright’s house and where defendant was standing next to the fight. She

initially testified that the officer told her defendant’s name before the lineup, but then later testified

she was unsure of whether it was before or after the lineup when she became aware of defendant’s

name. No one told Gibson who the shooter was in the lineup or who to identify.

¶ 25 On cross-examination, Gibson testified she was unsure if she learned of defendant’s name

at the police station on September 6, 2011, or June 19, 2013. She acknowledged defendant’s

photograph was included in the photo array which she viewed on September 6 but did not identify

defendant at that time. On the evening of the shooting, Gibson did drink some alcohol but not

-9- No. 1-18-1934

much. Gibson was “not sure” if she told Detective Lambert she observed a large group of African-

American males outside with weapons. She was also “unsure” if she told Lambert she heard three

gunshots but did not see the actual shooting. Gibson testified, “I seen the shooting. I was standing

right there.” Gibson was unsure if she told Delfavero that she heard four gunshots.

¶ 26 Gibson further testified that Wright was maced on her nose, lips, and chin. The mace did

not get into Wright’s eyes. Gibson denied knowing anyone named Quinton. Gibson acknowledged

she had only a second or two to observe the shooter. She further acknowledged that when she

testified before the grand jury, she might have said that when she could not enter Wright’s house,

she turned around and saw Jackson on the ground, but did not see where defendant had gone.

Gibson testified that when she arrived at the police station on June 19, 2013, the police first showed

her the photograph of defendant with his hair partially braided, and then she viewed the live lineup.

¶ 27 Forensic Investigator Brian Smith

¶ 28 Chicago police forensic investigator Brian Smith testified that he investigated the crime

scene at 1:30 a.m. on September 5. Smith photographed the scene and recovered three .45-caliber

cartridge cases. He also recovered plastic cups, beer cans, glass bottles, a plastic bottle, an open

bag of cat food, a stainless-steel razor, and a bloody shirt and towel.

¶ 29 Stipulations

¶ 30 The State presented a stipulation that Assistant Cook County Medical Examiner Adrienne

Segovia performed an autopsy on Jackson. The autopsy revealed Jackson sustained four gunshot

wounds, two to his back, one to his chest, and a graze wound to his left arm. Segovia was able to

recover one bullet from Jackson’s body. Segovia concluded that the cause of death was multiple

gunshot wounds and the manner of death was homicide.

- 10 - No. 1-18-1934

¶ 31 The State also presented a stipulation that firearms expert Jennifer Hanna examined three

RWS .45-caliber fired cartridge cases and determined they were fired from the same firearm. She

also examined the fired bullet recovered from Jackson and determined it was a .45-caliber bullet.

¶ 32 The State presented a stipulation that fingerprint analyst Jeanne Hutcherson examined

numerous items collected from the scene including 12 plastic cups, 3 aluminum cans, 3 glass

bottles, 2 plastic bags, a plastic bottle, a bottle cap, a foil containing cat treats, and a razor blade.

Hutcherson found no latent fingerprints suitable for comparison on any of the items except for one

print on one plastic cup which did not reveal an identification when compared to defendant’s prints.

¶ 33 At the end of the State’s case, surveillance video and photographs were also admitted into

evidence. The video, recorded by a police observation device (POD) camera, depicts Jackson

arriving at the complex. Jackson is approached by a man wearing a white T-shirt, and the two men

begin fighting. A crowd of about 15 people gathered around the men. It appears others may have

joined the fight, but it is difficult to decipher because of the crowd. About one minute into the

fight, a person walks down the sidewalk approaching the alteraction wearing jeans and a dark-

colored hoodie partially zipped with a white T-shirt underneath. The individual walks directly up

to the fight, extends his arm, and a flash is visible. The crowd disperses and runs in various

directions. The gunman turns around, makes a little skip, then runs in the direction from which he

came. Jackson is lying on the ground motionless. Facial features, however, are not visible on the

video. Dushaunda and Gibson identified the same person on the video as defendant.

¶ 34 In a motion for a directed finding, defense counsel argued that the State’s witnesses lacked

credibility and reliability, and that their testimony was inconsistent with each other and with what

they had related to other individuals. The trial court denied the motion.

- 11 - No. 1-18-1934

¶ 35 Defendant’s Case

¶ 36 Michael Harlan

¶ 37 Michael Harlan, an assistant director of security at St. Bernard Hospital, testified he knew

defendant and identified him in court. On September 4, 2011, Harlan lived six or seven doors down

from where the shooting occurred. Harlan observed the shooting while standing outside on his

porch. The rowhouses were narrow in width, and Harlan was able to see the location of the

shooting without much obstruction. He testified that defendant was not the shooter. Harlan knew

the gunman by his nickname, “Nephew.” Harlan did not know Nephew’s real name. Harlan had

known of Nephew for approximately eight or nine years. In court, Harlan identified photographs

of Nephew. Harlan viewed the surveillance video beginning about 10 minutes prior to the shooting.

As the video played, Harlan identified a man sitting alone on a bench as his brother, Nathan Willis.

Harlan also identified Arsenio Paraharm. Harlan identified Nephew rising from a bench wearing

a black hoodie, then walking past Harlan’s house. Nephew’s hair was styled half in cornrows or

braids, and the other half was natural. It was a common hairstyle in the complex and several men

wore similar hairstyles that evening. Harlan observed Nephew fire the handgun. Harlan did not

observe defendant in the area on the night of the shooting.

¶ 38 Harlan’s brother told him a fight was taking place. On the video, about two minutes before

the shooting, Harlan identified a man wearing a black hoodie, light T-shirt and blue jeans as

Nephew. Harlan identified another man wearing a white T-shirt as Nephew’s uncle, Stacey

Madden. Paraharm was standing to the right of Nephew wearing a black T-shirt and dark pants.

When Harlan heard the gunshots, he stepped inside his door and held it open for his brother to

- 12 - No. 1-18-1934

enter the house. After the gunshots, Nephew ran past them and entered a house on the corner

known to be a gang hangout. Harlan identified the man running on the video as Nephew.

¶ 39 Harlan watched a portion of the video again and identified Jackson walking towards

Wright’s house. Harlan testified that the video depicts a large man wearing a black T-shirt and

jeans handing a handgun to Jackson. He then testified that he did not see anything in Jackson’s

hand on the video, but noticed the large man holding a firearm. Harlan did not know the large man

but had noticed him around the neighborhood quite often. A couple of people had firearms that

night. Harlan continued watching the video and identified Jackson talking to a man, then punching

that man in the face. Harlan did not know the man who was fighting with Jackson. He denied it

was his brother or defendant’s brother. Defense counsel asked Harlan if it could be a man named

Quinton. Harlan testified that the more he talked about it, his memory returned, and the man

fighting Jackson was Quinton Young. Harlan identified Nephew approaching the fight. While

watching the video, Harlan claimed Nephew was telling everyone to “get back.” Harlan testified

that Nephew fired the handgun then ran towards Harlan’s house. The crowd dispersed. Shortly

after the shooting, Harlan learned Nephew had been arrested. He thought Nephew was arrested for

Jackson’s murder. Defendant lived in Indiana. Harlan saw defendant at the complex once or twice

a week.

¶ 40 Harlan further testified that defense counsel and her investigator interviewed him and

showed him a photograph of defendant on February 2, 2017. Harlan identified defendant in the

photograph, signed it, and wrote “This is not the shooter. He was not there.” The investigator also

showed Harlan photographs of Nephew. Harlan identified Nephew as the shooter but refused to

sign the photos at that time as he did not want to get involved. Harlan testified:

- 13 - No. 1-18-1934

“I know I played a big part in this and I think about my life outside of here. I really didn’t

even want to be here so I been avoiding this situation and was trying my best not to be a

part of it because I know for sure that I knew exactly what happened and I was there.”

Harlan never went to the police as he did not want to “deal with the aftermath.”

¶ 41 On cross-examination, Harlan acknowledged that he did not go to the area where the fight

was taking place. Harlan also testified that he does not appear in the surveillance video. Harlan

was friends with both defendant and Nephew. Harlan learned defendant was arrested for Jackson’s

murder when defense counsel interviewed him in 2017. Harlan knew defendant did not commit

the murder, but did not go to the police. At trial, Harlan still did not know Nephew’s real name,

but knew his face.

¶ 42 On redirect examination, Harlan again viewed the video. He identified Nephew as the

shooter standing on the left side of the screen near the big tree. According to Harlan, the video

depicted Nephew as he “did a little skip” then he ran towards Harlan’s house. Harlan testified he

was 100% certain the shooter was Nephew and not defendant.

¶ 43 Kellee Webb

¶ 44 Kellee Webb testified that on September 21, 2011, her friend, Zedeki Mobley, called and

asked her to give him a ride. She agreed. Webb and her friend, Derrick Pointer, who was sitting in

her passenger seat, picked up Mobley and two of his friends from an address Mobley had provided

to her. Mobley had a handgun sticking out of his waistband. Webb drove to an address in Dolton

which Mobley had given to her. Mobley and his friends exited Webb’s vehicle and went down an

alley. When they returned, Mobley went to Webb’s side of the vehicle and his two friends went to

the passenger’s side. Mobley’s friends pointed a firearm at Pointer. Mobley opened Webb’s door

- 14 - No. 1-18-1934

and told her to exit her vehicle. Mobley no longer had the handgun on him. Mobley and his friends

drove away in Webb’s vehicle. Webb filed a police report, but later dropped the charges as her

vehicle was returned to her. In court, Webb identified a photograph of Mobley. When presented

with three photographs which Harlan had identified as depicting Nephew, Webb testified that the

same photographs depicted Mobley.

¶ 45 Detective Dave Crudup

¶ 46 Dolton police detective Dave Crudup testified that he investigated the aggravated vehicular

hijacking of Webb. Mobley was arrested for that offense on October 3, 2011. In court, Crudup

confirmed that Mobley’s arrest record included a mug shot from a prior arrest. Crudup then

identified three photographs – which Harlan had identified as depicting Nephew – as “[t]he

defendant who’s present in court, Zedeki Mobley.” When asked whether the defendant in the

courtroom was Zedeki Mobley or Camari Glover, Crudup replied that he made a mistake; he

testified that the defendant in the courtroom was Glover, who was not the man in the photographs.

¶ 47 Jarrmayne Huskey

¶ 48 Jarrmayne Huskey testified that he knew defendant from when they both lived in Altgeld

Gardens. He identified defendant in court. On the night of September 4, 2011, Huskey and

defendant were standing on a corner in the complex talking with three women – Theresa,

Dominicka, 5 and Nakiya Smith. They were near Smith’s house, about four houses from Huskey’s

house. About 10:23 p.m., Huskey heard gunshots. Huskey and defendant ran to Huskey’s house

and entered his home. As they ran, defendant fell and Huskey picked him up. The women also ran,

but Huskey did not see where they had gone. In court, Huskey identified a photograph depicting

5 Theresa’s and Dominicka’s last names do not appear in the record.

- 15 - No. 1-18-1934

the corner where they were standing and his house down the row. On the surveillance video,

Huskey identified himself and defendant running around a corner heading towards Huskey’s

house.

¶ 49 On cross-examination, Huskey testified that he was too far from the shooting to see what

had occurred. He could see many people were at the location of the shooting, but he could not see

their faces as it was dark. There was a lot of commotion and numerous individuals walking back

and forth. Huskey was aware defendant was arrested for the murder in 2013, but never spoke with

police.

¶ 50 Nakiya Smith

¶ 51 Nakiya Smith testified she knew who defendant was from seeing him often but did not

have a “personal relationship” with him. She identified defendant in court. Smith lived in Altgeld

Gardens, and defendant and Huskey were her neighbors. About 10 p.m. on September 4, Smith

was standing outside her house talking with defendant, Huskey, her friend Theresa, and another

woman whose name she could not recall. Smith heard a commotion and people arguing, but was

not able to observe what was taking place. About 10:20 p.m., Smith heard gunshots. She then ran

inside her house. Defendant and Huskey ran towards Huskey’s house. Smith did not know where

the other women had gone.

¶ 52 Arsenio Paraharm

¶ 53 Arsenio Paraharm testified he was friends with defendant and identified him in court.

During the day on September 4, Paraharm observed Jackson’s mother, Wanda, and defendant’s

sister, Caprice, arguing in front of defendant’s house. The women began fighting and Caprice

knocked Wanda into the bushes. Defendant broke up the fight. Defendant sat down with Paraharm

- 16 - No. 1-18-1934

and others for a minute and joked about the women’s fight. Defendant then walked to Huskey’s

house. Paraharm could not recall if Huskey had been at defendant’s house at that time or not.

Paraharm testified that the rest of the day he stayed outside by his house, a couple of doors down

from defendant’s house. During the evening, Paraharm was standing on the sidewalk between his

house and the benches, talking with friends. There were many people outside at the time. Paraharm

heard a loud commotion at the other end of the rowhouses, near Wanda’s and Wright’s houses. He

observed arms swinging in a crowd, but did not know what was occurring. Paraharm then heard

gunshots and everyone scattered. Paraharm ran inside his house. Paraharm never noticed defendant

return to the area before the shooting. He did not observe defendant or anyone else with a handgun

that day.

¶ 54 On cross-examination, Paraharm testified that he used to see defendant at the complex

almost every day. Paraharm denied there was “bad blood” between Jackson’s and defendant’s

family. Paraharm did not know how far he was from the shooting, but knew it was much farther

than the distance to the courtroom door of 48 feet. Paraharm acknowledged he knew defendant’s

brother, Jerry Freeman. Paraharm’s friend, Nate Willis, told him that the defense investigator was

looking for him. Paraharm did not recall seeing Willis on the night of the shooting.

¶ 55 Pursuant to questioning from the court, Paraharm denied knowing anyone named Nephew,

Zedeki Mobley, Stacey Madden, or anyone else who lived in the complex named Arsenio.

¶ 56 Jerry Freeman

¶ 57 Jerry Freeman, defendant’s brother, testified that on September 4 he was living at his

mother’s house in Altgeld Gardens. That morning, he heard his mother and sister arguing with

Wanda outside their house. Defendant broke up the fight, then walked to Huskey’s house. Later

- 17 - No. 1-18-1934

that evening, about 10 to 12 minutes before the shooting, Freeman observed defendant and Huskey

near a corner, walking from Huskey’s house with two women. Freeman walked to where they

were, then walked home. Defendant remained near Huskey’s house.

¶ 58 While standing in front of his own house, Freeman observed Jackson arrive at the complex.

Jackson was intoxicated, very vocal, and very aggressive. Jackson stated, “I’m here,” then said

“why everybody think my brother shot up the block, it was me.” Jackson approached a man,

exchanged words with him, then swung at him. Jackson and the man began fighting. Jackson’s

girlfriend (Wright) struck the other man with a beer bottle. A crowd of about 10 people gathered

around the fight. Defendant was not in the area. Jackson ended up on the ground. A man who was

with Jackson shot a pistol.

¶ 59 While watching the surveillance video in court, Freeman pointed out a man in a black T-

shirt and identified that man as the one with the pistol who fired the first shot. That shot went

through Freeman’s friend’s house. Jackson unsuccessfully reached for the gun. A crowd migrated

towards the man who fired the shot, and someone shot Jackson in retaliation for the initial gunshot.

Freeman testified that the video depicted a man in a black hoodie run up and shoot Jackson while

he was laying on the ground. Freeman did not know who the man in the black hoodie was and

denied it was defendant. Defendant was not in the area at the time of the shooting. The crowd

scattered and ran. Freeman’s mother pulled him and his sister inside their house. Freeman did not

see defendant until the next day.

¶ 60 On cross-examination, Freeman acknowledged that he never went to the police after

defendant was arrested and never told them what he observed on the night of the shooting. Freeman

told the prosecutor to ask him “the right question” and “no trick questions.” The prosecutor asked

- 18 - No. 1-18-1934

Freeman if he saw Huskey in court. Freeman was evasive. The court asked Freeman “[d]id you

see him today, yes or no?” Freeman testified “I probably seen him today.”

¶ 61 On redirect examination, Freeman testified that he did not go to the police after defendant

was arrested as defendant was arrested in Indiana on another charge. No one interviewed Freeman

and he did not know to whom he should relate his story. Freeman denied that he discussed his

testimony with Huskey at the courthouse.

¶ 62 Sergeant William Meador

¶ 63 Chicago police sergeant William Meador testified that during an interview on September 5,

2011, Dushaunda informed him that defendant was involved in a physical altercation with Jackson

and defendant ran from the scene after shots were fired. Meador did not recall if Dushaunda told

him defendant had an object in his hand, and his police report did not indicate she told him so. On

cross-examination, Meador testified he had shown Dushaunda the surveillance video after she told

him what she observed on September 4.

¶ 64 Sergeant Isaac Lambert

¶ 65 Chicago police sergeant Isaac Lambert testified that during an interview on September 6,

2011, Gibson told him she observed a large group of men outside with handguns. Gibson also told

him she did not observe the actual shooting. On cross-examination, Lambert testified Gibson was

shown the surveillance video after she told him what she observed on September 4.

¶ 66 Detective Marc Delfavero

¶ 67 Detective Delfavero testified that during an interview on September 4 or 5, 2011, Wanda

told him Jackson was fighting with a man when Quinton, a boy she knew from the neighborhood,

joined the fight to help beat up Jackson. Wanda stated that she ran over to help and was punched

- 19 - No. 1-18-1934

by an unknown individual. During an interview on June 18, 2013, Wanda told Delfavero she did

not see the shooter run away because she was knocked to the ground during the altercation. Wanda

stated that she learned defendant was the person who killed her son, and she contacted his mother.

¶ 68 During an interview on September 6, 2011, Dushaunda told Delfavero that Quinton hit

Jackson’s brother, Rubin, with a bottle a few months before the shooting. She also stated that

Quinton’s brother punched Jackson on the night of the shooting. Dushaunda said Quinton had a

short haircut, was 5 feet 9 inches to 5 feet 10 inches tall, and weighed 150 to 170 pounds.

Dushaunda stated that Quinton was fighting Jackson and wearing a white T-shirt. Also on

September 6, Gibson told Delfavero the original dispute on September 4 was a fight over a man

between her, Caprice, and Tone, and one of the women sprayed Wright and her baby with mace.

Gibson said Wright then called Jackson, Eddie Wright, and another man.

¶ 69 Investigator Rosa Silva

¶ 70 Rosa Silva, an investigator with the office of the Cook County Public Defender, testified

that she and defense counsel interviewed Wright on April 21, 2017. Wright told them that after the

gunshots, the person with the hood up never turned their face toward her and never ran past her.

Wright also told them that she had told the police she was maced in the face, but that was not true.

¶ 71 On cross-examination, Silva acknowledged she typed a summary of her interview with

Wright after the fact and never showed it to Wright for her review. Wright refused to meet with

Silva a second time. Silva admitted that her summary, in its entirety, stated as follows:

“Mary Wright stated that Sugar maced her, but the mace did not get into her eyes. Mary

Wright stated that she told the police that she was maced in the face, but this was not true.

- 20 - No. 1-18-1934

Mary Wright stated that she did not really have very much mace on her face from that

fight.”

Silva acknowledged that during an interview on February 2, 2017, Harlan told her that the man

who committed the shooting was currently in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) on

unrelated charges.

¶ 72 Litigation Coordinator Alexis Catlett Webb

¶ 73 Alexis Catlett Webb, litigation coordinator for the IDOC facility in Danville, testified that

in 2017, defense counsel contacted her to arrange a meeting with Mobley, an inmate at the facility.

Webb did not allow the interview as counsel was not Mobley’s attorney. In accordance with IDOC

procedure, counsel sent a letter to Mobley, asking if he would be willing to speak with Silva.

Mobley declined to speak with her. In court, Webb identified photographs of Mobley.

¶ 74 Stipulations

¶ 75 Defendant presented a stipulation that Cook County investigator McDermott 6 would testify

that on May 19, 2014, he collected a buccal swab from defendant. Defendant presented additional

stipulations that Elizabeth Zawicki, Brian Schoon, and Wendy Gruhl, DNA analysts with the

Illinois State Police, analyzed the numerous items collected at the scene. Many of the items

contained insufficient DNA to analyze. For those items that contained sufficient DNA profiles for

analysis, defendant was excluded from being a contributor to those profiles.

¶ 76 Defendant also presented a certified copy of Mobley’s conviction indicating that on July

3, 2012, Mobley pled guilty to an amended charge of armed robbery without a firearm and was

sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.

6 McDermott’s first name does not appear in the record.

- 21 - No. 1-18-1934

¶ 77 Closing Arguments

¶ 78 In closing, defense counsel argued that Wright, Dushaunda, and Gibson were wrong when

they identified defendant as the shooter, and that Mobley was the shooter. Counsel claimed

defendant and Mobley resembled each other, which was demonstrated when Crudup mistakenly

identified defendant as Mobley in court. Counsel argued that the State’s witnesses were unreliable.

In response, the State argued that Wright, Dushaunda, and Gibson knew defendant, their

identifications of him were credible, and defendant’s alibi witnesses were not credible. The State

further argued that Harlan was not credible, he was the only witness who knew Mobley and

claimed to have seen him at the complex, and his testimony that defendant did not live at the

complex and was rarely there was contradicted by the State’s and defendant’s witnesses.

¶ 79 Trial Court’s Review of Testimony

¶ 80 The trial court reviewed the testimony from all the witnesses in detail, beginning with

defendant’s witnesses. The court noted that Harlan was the only person who testified that he

observed the shooter enter a specific house after the shooting. Yet, Harlan, an assistant director of

security at a well-known hospital, did nothing. The court also noted that Harlan testified Paraharm

was near the benches at the same time as Nephew, but Paraharm never mentioned Nephew being

there. The court stated, “I do not believe Michael Harlan. I don’t think I will ever believe Michael

Harlan. His testimony was utterly unworthy of belief.”

¶ 81 The court stated that the admissibility of the vehicular hijacking testimony from Kellee

Webb and Detective Crudup was “beyond speculative.” It found that their testimony “had nothing

to do with this case at all” and was “beyond irrelevant.”

- 22 - No. 1-18-1934

¶ 82 The court stated that Paraharm had “every opportunity” to testify that the shooter was

Nephew, not defendant, but was not asked to do so. The court found that Freeman had difficulty

answering questions, accused the State of trying to trick him on several straightforward questions,

and was “beyond defensive.” The court noted that neither Paraharm or Freeman were shown a

photograph of Nephew, and stated that it did not believe either of them.

¶ 83 The court found it “curious” that Huskey and defendant were the only people running in

the portion of the video identified by Huskey. The court stated that no one was fleeing with them

at that juncture, and no one else was fleeing in that area of the neighborhood. The court questioned

how Huskey and Nakiya Smith, who did not witness the shooting, were able to recall the details

of that night. It noted that Smith’s testimony happened “to coincide exactly” with Huskey’s. The

court concluded their testimony was “[d]ifficult to credit” and it did “not believe them.”

¶ 84 The court stated that, even if it did not believe certain aspects of defendant’s evidence, it

was still the State’s burden to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that

the video corroborated Wright’s testimony that the shooter was “skipping down the street” with a

handgun in his hand and that her testimony was credible. The court noted Wright’s testimony was

impeached by the testimony that she told the police that the shooter never ran past her and that he

had his hood up. She was also impeached about lying to the police about being maced in the face.

The court further noted, however, that Wright testified on redirect examination that the shooter

placed his hood up as he fled, and that Silva acknowledged Wright told police the mace got on her

face. The court concluded that it had “no reason to disbelieve” Wright.

¶ 85 The court found that the individual Dushaunda identified on the video as defendant “was

clearly the shooter.” The court noted Dushaunda was impeached by Meador’s testimony that she

- 23 - No. 1-18-1934

told him the offender had nothing in his hand. The court found, however, that whether or not

Dushaunda saw an object in the person’s hand, the offender had the weapon that killed Jackson in

his hand. In addition, the court noted that Gibson testified she had seen defendant all day and that

he was the person she observed who approached the fight and fired a handgun.

¶ 86 The court found that Wright and Dushaunda had no difficulty identifying defendant in the

photo array as the person they observed running from the scene and whom Dushaunda identified

as the person who shot and killed Jackson. The court noted Gibson did not identify defendant in

the photo array two days after the shooting but identified him in the lineup in 2013. The court

found that the lineup was not suggestive. It also found that when Gibson was asked if she viewed

a photograph of defendant before or after she viewed the lineup, she was “mistaken regarding the

timing.”

¶ 87 Conviction, Posttrial Motion, and Sentencing

¶ 88 The court found that Wright, Gibson, Dushaunda and Wanda “testified truthfully and

credibly,” and that their testimony proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all six

counts of first degree murder. The court merged the counts into count V, which charged that

defendant personally discharged a firearm during the offense which caused Jackson’s death.

¶ 89 In a lengthy posttrial motion, defendant argued, inter alia, that the State failed to prove him

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the identifications of him by the State’s witnesses were

unreliable, and their testimony was impeached, inconsistent, and not credible. Defendant further

argued that he presented credible evidence of an alternative suspect, Mobley, through Harlan’s

credible testimony, and that the testimony regarding Mobley’s aggravated vehicular hijacking was

- 24 - No. 1-18-1934

relevant. In addition, defendant argued that the testimony from his alibi witnesses was credible,

consistent, and unimpeached. The trial court denied the motion.

¶ 90 The trial court sentenced defendant to the minimum term of 20 years’ imprisonment for

the murder and an additional 25-year mandatory sentencing enhancement for personally

discharging a firearm that caused Jackson’s death, for an aggregate sentence of 45 years in prison.

¶ 91 ANALYSIS

¶ 92 On appeal, defendant contends the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt as the State’s witnesses were thoroughly impeached, their testimony was not credible, and

their identifications of him were not reliable. Defendant argues that he presented credible evidence

that Mobley was the shooter and credible alibi testimony that he was not present at the scene of

the shooting. Defendant claims the trial court’s findings did not support its credibility

determinations, and the court disregarded flaws in the testimony of the State’s witnesses.

¶ 93 When defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, this court

must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any

rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense established beyond a reasonable

doubt. People v. Brown, 2013 IL 114196, ¶ 48 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19

(1979)). This standard applies whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, and does not allow

this court to substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder on issues involving witness credibility

and the weight of the evidence. People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 280-81 (2009). Under this

standard, all reasonable inferences from the evidence must be allowed in favor of the State. People

v. Lloyd, 2013 IL 113510, ¶ 42.

- 25 - No. 1-18-1934

¶ 94 In a bench trial, the trial court is responsible for determining the credibility of the witnesses,

weighing the evidence, resolving conflicts in the evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences

from therein. People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d 213, 228 (2009). In weighing the evidence, the

fact finder is not required to disregard the inferences which naturally flow from that evidence, nor

must it search for any possible explanation consistent with innocence and raise it to the level of

reasonable doubt. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d at 281. We will not reverse a criminal conviction based upon

insufficient evidence unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that there is reasonable

doubt as to defendant’s guilt. People v. Beauchamp, 241 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2011).

¶ 95 To prove defendant guilty of first degree murder as charged in this case, the State was

required to establish that, without lawful justification, he intentionally or knowingly shot and killed

Jackson while armed with a firearm, and that he personally discharged the firearm which

proximately caused Jackson’s death. 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2010).

¶ 96 Here, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the record demonstrates that the

evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for

murdering Jackson. Gibson, Wright, and Dushaunda all testified that they observed defendant at

the scene at the time of the shooting and they all identified defendant in court. Wanda also observed

defendant at the scene at the time of the shooting. Gibson testified that while Jackson was engaged

in a fight, she observed defendant walk up to the fight, point a handgun, and fire gunshots. After

the shooting, Gibson observed defendant run down the walkway. Gibson knew defendant from

seeing him around the complex, and saw him all day on the day in question. In a photograph from

the surveillance video, Gibson identified herself running towards Wright’s house and defendant

standing next to the fight. Gibson also identified defendant in a live lineup and identified a

- 26 - No. 1-18-1934

photograph of defendant which depicted how he appeared at the time of the shooting with his hair

partially braided.

¶ 97 Wright testified that immediately after the shooting, she observed defendant “skipping

down the street” with a handgun in his hand. As defendant ran away, he turned his face and looked

back towards Wright for a second or two. Defendant then pulled his hood over his head and fled.

Wright had known defendant for three years and would see him at the complex every day. She

gave the police defendant’s name at the hospital. Three days after the shooting, Wright viewed a

photo array and identified defendant “right away” as the individual she observed running with a

handgun.

¶ 98 Dushaunda testified that defendant approached the fight from her left side and stood behind

her shoulder. As defendant would be coming around the complex on many occasions, she knew

him. On the night in question, prior to the shooting she was able to clearly observe his face.

Dushaunda then heard multiple gunshots coming from her left. She ran to Wanda’s house 20 feet

away, turned around, and observed defendant running down the street towards his mother’s house

with an object in his hand. Two days later she identified defendant in a photo array as the person

who ran from the scene with something in his hand. Dushaunda identified herself and defendant

on the surveillance video at the time of the shooting. The trial court noted where defendant was

standing at the scene, and that he was wearing a dark covering over a light T-shirt. The three female

witnesses provided similar descriptions of defendant’s clothing. Gibson testified he was wearing

a black hoodie with a white shirt underneath, Wright testified he was wearing blue jeans and a

black sweater, and Dushaunda testified he was wearing jeans, a white T-shirt, and a black hoodie.

- 27 - No. 1-18-1934

All three women testified that half of defendant’s hair was in braids and the other half was not

styled. Wright and Dushaunda did not see anyone else at the scene with the same hairstyle.

¶ 99 The trial court reviewed the testimony of all the witnesses in detail and found that Wanda,

Wright, Dushaunda, and Gibson “testified truthfully and credibly.” The court specifically found

that the video corroborated Wright’s testimony that the shooter was “skipping down the street.” It

also found that the individual Dushaunda identified on the video as defendant “was clearly the

shooter.” It was the trial court’s responsibility to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility

of the witnesses. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d at 228. The court concluded that the testimony from

Wright, Dushaunda and Gibson proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on this

record, we find no grounds to disturb the trial court’s determination.

¶ 100 In reaching this conclusion, we find no merit in defendant’s argument that the testimony

from the State’s witnesses was not credible as they were impeached and their identifications were

not reliable. The testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction where it is

positive and credible, even when it is contradicted by defendant. People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958,

¶ 36. A conviction will not be reversed simply due to the fact that the evidence was contradictory,

or defendant claims a witness was not credible. Id. “[C]ontradictory testimony does not necessarily

destroy the credibility of a witness[.]” Id. ¶ 47. It is the duty of the factfinder to determine if and

when the witness testified truthfully, and how flaws in part of the testimony affected the credibility

of the whole testimony. Id.

¶ 101 The record demonstrates that the trial court considered the same impeachment and

identification challenges defendant raises on appeal and found them unpersuasive. Defendant

argues that Gibson’s testimony stating that she observed the shooting was impeached by Detective

- 28 - No. 1-18-1934

Lambert’s testimony when she told him she did not observe the shooting and that she observed a

large group of African-American males outside with handguns. The record demonstrates, however,

that on cross-examination, Gibson testified that she was “not sure” if she told Lambert she

observed a group of men with handguns and “unsure” if she told him she heard three shots but did

not see the actual shooting. Immediately thereafter, Gibson testified, “I seen the shooting. I was

standing right there.” Defendant further argues that Gibson’s identification was unreliable as she

had only seconds to view the shooter, she did not identify anyone in the photo array, and her lineup

identification was tainted where the police told her defendant’s name and had shown her his

photograph. The trial court specifically noted that Gibson did not identify defendant in the photo

array, found that the lineup was not suggestive, and found that Gibson was “mistaken regarding

the timing” of when she viewed the photograph. The court determined that any flaws in Gibson’s

testimony did not affect her credibility, and we find no reason to disturb that finding. Gray, 2017

IL 120958, ¶ 47.

¶ 102 Similarly, the record sets forth that the court acknowledged that both Wright and

Dushaunda were impeached by testimony from the detectives regarding information they provided

the police during their initial interviews. The court found, however, that the impeachments were

insignificant and did not affect the credibility of their testimony. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 47.

Moreover, the court expressly found that Wright and Dushaunda had no difficulty identifying

defendant as the individual they noticed running from the scene. Both women knew defendant

from the complex. Wright had seen defendant every day and Dushaunda had seen him on many

occasions. The veracity of their testimony and the reliability of their identifications were

- 29 - No. 1-18-1934

determinations within the province of the trial court, and we find no basis to disturb its rulings.

Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d at 228.

¶ 103 Defendant’s challenge to Wanda’s credibility is also unpersuasive. Defendant argues that

Wanda was impeached by Delfavero’s testimony that she told him she was knocked to the ground

when she tried to break up Jackson’s fight. Defendant also claims Wanda and Dushaunda were not

credible because they testified they did not know Quinton but had mentioned him to the detectives.

We find it significant to point out that the State called Wanda solely as a “life and death” witness

– i.e., to establish the identity of the deceased and the fact that he is deceased (People v. Cannon,

49 Ill. 2d 162, 167 (1971)) – and did not present any substantive testimony from her. The record

further demonstrates no significance was ever established as to who Quinton was or what, if

anything, he had to do with Jackson’s murder. The trial court found these impeachments were of

no import, and the record supports that finding.

¶ 104 We also find no merit in defendant’s contention that he presented credible evidence that

Mobley was the shooter and credible alibi testimony that he was not present at the scene of the

shooting. Defendant maintains that Harlan credibly testified that Mobley was the shooter and that

defendant was not present. Defendant argues that he and Mobley resembled each other. He further

argues that the evidence regarding Mobley’s vehicular hijacking 17 days after the murder was

relevant as it established Mobley had access to a handgun at the time of the murder.

¶ 105 In regard to his alibi, defendant argues that Huskey and Nakiya Smith provided credible,

unimpeached testimony that defendant was standing on a corner with them when they heard the

gunshots and fled to Huskey’s house. He claims that Paraharm and Freeman corroborated his alibi

when they testified that defendant left his house and went to Huskey’s house. He further notes that

- 30 - No. 1-18-1934

Freeman testified that 10 minutes prior to the shooting, he noticed defendant and Huskey coming

from Huskey’s house. Freeman also testified that he observed an unknown person commit the

shooting.

¶ 106 The trial court rejected these same arguments at trial and when it denied defendant’s

posttrial motion. The court adamantly stated that it did “not believe Michael Harlan” and that “[h]is

testimony was utterly unworthy of belief.” See People v. Moon, 2019 IL App (1st) 161573, ¶ 32

(providing that in a bench trial, it is for the judge, sitting as the trier of fact, to determine the

credibility of the witnesses, to weigh the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom, and

to resolve conflicts in the evidence). The court noted that Harlan, an assistant director of security

for a hospital, claimed he observed the shooter enter a specific house after the shooting, yet did

nothing about it. The court also noted that Harlan claimed Paraharm was near the benches at the

same time as Nephew before the shooting, but Paraharm never mentioned Nephew being there.

The record establishes that Paraharm denied knowing anyone named Nephew or Mobley. The trial

court further found that the testimony regarding Mobley’s vehicular hijacking was “beyond

irrelevant” and “had nothing to do with this case at all.” We note that when the court provisionally

granted defendant’s motion in limine to present this evidence, it questioned the relevancy and

stated that the testimony only established Mobley had a handgun on the date of the vehicular

hijacking.

¶ 107 Moreover, the record establishes that the trial court found the alibi testimony from

Paraharm, Freeman, Huskey, and Smith not credible. The court explained its reasoning, discussing

their testimony in detail. This court will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for

the trier of fact, especially when credibility determinations are at the heart of the case. Jackson,

- 31 - No. 1-18-1934

232 Ill. 2d at 280-81. The trial court was not obligated to accept the testimony from defendant’s

witnesses simply because it was unimpeached. The trier of fact is free to accept or reject as much

or as little of a witness’ testimony as it pleases. People v. Logan, 352 Ill. App. 3d 73, 81 (2004).

Defendant argues that the trial court’s findings do not support its credibility determinations. Our

review of the record does not substantiate that assertion. The trial court’s findings are supported

by the record, and we find no basis to disturb its credibility determinations.

¶ 108 CONCLUSION

¶ 109 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 110 Affirmed.

- 32 -