{ "id": 2961869, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERMAINE AMMONS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Ammons", "decision_date": "1993-10-07", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201492\u20140564", "first_page": "345", "last_page": "348", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "251 Ill. App. 3d 345" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "447 N.E.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 Ill. 2d 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3106990 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/94/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 N.E. 859", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 Ill. 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5016776 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/301/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 N.E.2d 800", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Ill. App. 3d 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2515390 ], "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/17/0067-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 349, "char_count": 5201, "ocr_confidence": 0.781, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0319690089396085e-07, "percentile": 0.5483597692375115 }, "sha256": "fc4ccb77c58cfbfa2c5d8869ad29574d546a2de4a480a5a11258e5dc19da24a5", "simhash": "1:e922d748f64e051c", "word_count": 883 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:22:05.264174+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERMAINE AMMONS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SLATER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA jury convicted the defendant, Jermaine Ammons, of first degree murder. He was thereafter sentenced to 50 years\u2019 imprisonment. He appeals, alleging the trial court erred by allowing the State to replay an audiotape of his statement to the police during rebuttal closing argument. We reverse.\nThe record of the trial shows that on October 13, 1991, two of the State\u2019s witnesses were riding around Joliet in a Chevrolet Blazer owned by a member of the Vice Lords gang. While driving along Woodruff Road, they saw a group of people standing on a street corner. One of the persons in that group walked onto the street and began firing a gun at them, while several others also fired shots at them. Several of the bullets hit the Blazer. One of the bullets went through a wall of a nearby home and hit the victim, Ola Kelly, causing her death.\nDetective Thomas Stein testified that he spoke to the defendant about the shooting. Defendant acknowledged he was a member of the Gangster Disciples gang. He told Stein that he and two other people saw the Blazer and knew it belonged to a rival gang member. The defendant said that each of them had a gun and was firing at the Blazer. The defendant never told Stein that he was just trying to scare the individuals in the Blazer.\nStein also testified that the defendant later gave a lengthy statement on audiotape concerning the incident. This tape was introduced into evidence and played to the jury during Stein\u2019s testimony.\nThe defendant\u2019s trial testimony was substantially the same as his taped statement, except that at trial he testified that he only fired the shots to scare the occupants of the Blazer. He claimed he did not aim at or intend to hit the people in the vehicle. In fact, most of the shots he fired hit trees.\nIn closing argument, defense counsel argued that the tape was not a fair characterization of the defendant\u2019s thoughts when he began talking to the police. In rebuttal, the State asked the trial court for permission to replay the defendant\u2019s taped statement. Over defense counsel\u2019s objection, the 18-minute tape was replayed in its entirety for the jury.\nOn appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in permitting the State to replay his taped statement. Specifically, he alleges that replaying of the tape tended to overemphasize the State\u2019s most critical piece of evidence. The State responds that no error occurred, or, if error did occur, it was invited or harmless.\nWe initially note that reading from a trial transcript during closing arguments is improper. The jury must pass upon the whole testimony free of the overemphasis given any portion of it by verbatim repetition during the trial\u2019s waning moments. See People v. Hoggs (1974), 17 Ill. App. 3d 67, 307 N.E.2d 800; People v. Willy (1921), 301 Ill. 307, 133 N.E. 859.\nBased on the foregoing principles, we find that allowing the State to replay the 18-minute audiotape during its rebuttal closing argument was improper. Allowing such evidence to be reintroduced dramatically overemphasized its credibility. As such, the defendant was severely prejudiced.\nWe also find that the error was not invited by the defendant. Defense counsel did comment on the tape in his closing argument. However, we note that he was merely questioning the credibility of the statement. He argued that when the defendant made the taped statement he had been talking to the police for over two hours and, as such, the tape was not the original version of what was on the defendant\u2019s mind when he shot at the victims. We find that defense counsel\u2019s comments did not amount to an invitation for the State to replay the entire tape. At most, they were comments the State could have objected to as a mischaracterization of the evidence. The proper procedure would then have been for the State to ask the court to strike the comments from the record.\nWe also decline to find that the error was harmless. While error may be harmless where the evidence of the defendant\u2019s guilt is overwhelming (see People v. Bryant (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 514, 447 N.E.2d 301), that situation does not exist in the case at hand. Here, in order to obtain a murder conviction, the State needed to show that the defendant intended to kill the individuals in the Blazer. The most critical piece of evidence used to establish this fact was the defendant\u2019s taped statement. The State had little other evidence to establish the defendant\u2019s intent. Defendant testified at trial that he did not shoot at anyone and only fired shots into the trees in an attempt to scare the individuals.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed and this case is remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nMcCUSKEY, P.J., and STOUDER, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SLATER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Verlin R. Meinz, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.", "James Glasgow, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERMAINE AMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201492\u20140564\nOpinion filed October 7, 1993.\nVerlin R. Meinz, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nJames Glasgow, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0345-01", "first_page_order": 365, "last_page_order": 368 }