{ "id": 4306946, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCOS GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Garcia", "decision_date": "2011-01-14", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201407\u20142317", "first_page": "195", "last_page": "207", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "407 Ill. App. 3d 195" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "298 Ill. App. 3d 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1073596 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "54", "parenthetical": "\"Intentionally firing a weapon at an occupied building is an act that has a natural tendency to cause death or great bodily harm and is of such a character as to defeat any assertion of recklessness.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/298/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 Ill. App. 3d 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 186577 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "516" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/313/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 Ill. App. 3d 1003", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2881696 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1027", "parenthetical": "\"[t]he intent to murder can be inferred from the act of firing a gun at a person because the natural tendency of such an act is to destroy another's life\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/258/1003-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 Ill. App. 3d 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5730849 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "688" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/358/0683-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 Ill. 2d 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2444253 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/212/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 Ill. App. 3d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1599218 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "14-15" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/336/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ill. App. 3d 998", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5585036 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1020", "parenthetical": "prosecutor's exhortation to jury not to \"cop-out\" by returning voluntary manslaughter verdict based on defendant's testimony not reversible error because it concerned defendant's credibility" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/72/0998-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 Ill. App. 3d 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2966729 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "368-69", "parenthetical": "prosecutor's characterization of defendant's theory of the case as \"so ridiculous that it isn't even worthy of comment\" not reversible error" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/252/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Ill. App. 3d 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3640015 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "184" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/137/0171-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 Ill. 2d 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 122017 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "127" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/185/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3629512 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "12-13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/237/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 Ill. App. 3d 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4305991 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/406/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 Ill. 2d 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4060336 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "178" }, { "page": "187" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/215/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 Ill. 2d 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5704197 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/225/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ill. 2d 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3092094 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "188" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/91/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 Ill. App. 3d 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2921609 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "451" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/250/0439-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 Ill. App. 3d 1012", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5110573 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1018-19" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/243/1012-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 Ill. App. 3d 830", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 222560 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "836" }, { "page": "837" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/296/0830-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 Ill. App. 3d 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2920024 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/250/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 Ill. App. 3d 810", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3018570 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/107/0810-01" ] }, { "cite": "312 Ill. App. 3d 226", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 411720 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "231", "parenthetical": "defendant presumed to know that firing a gun at an occupied home created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to the occupants of that home" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/312/0226-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1137, "char_count": 29945, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08, "percentile": 0.3276685243039266 }, "sha256": "3a9e8bbf5d8604ff665f1e38b4607705d922984a1e4b8afb3fd781a7e69e9336", "simhash": "1:aabb1612de2171a2", "word_count": 4994 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:37:05.247121+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. MARCOS GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE EPSTEIN\ndelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.\nJustices Joseph Gordon and Howse concurred in the judgment and opinion.\nOPINION\nFollowing a jury trial, defendant Marcos Garcia was found guilty of the first degree murder of Bonita McConnell and sentenced to 47 years of imprisonment. Defendant appeals, contending that: (1) the State failed to prove him guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the State made prejudicial comments during its opening statement and closing and rebuttal arguments, depriving defendant of a fair trial. Defendant asks that we reduce his conviction to involuntary manslaughter or second degree murder and remand for resentencing, or that we reverse his conviction and remand for a new trial. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.\nBACKGROUND\nOn July 31, 2005, Bonita McConnell was shot in the head and killed by a stray bullet while driving with her sister, Joyce Brooks, down Cicero Avenue in Chicago, Illinois.\nEarlier that day, defendant and his friends Peter Johnson, Juan Campos, and Rudy Cantu drove to a Wal-Mart store near the intersection of Cicero Avenue and West 72nd Street. All four men were part of or affiliated with the same street gang, the Two-Two Boys. While at the Wal-Mart, defendant and his friends attracted the attention of rival gang members Fidel Morales, Rene Jaime, and Gustavio Melecio. Although the men did not know each other, they recognized each other\u2019s gang colors. The groups exchanged threatening looks, but no words, and hurried to their vehicles after leaving the store; defendant and his friends to Johnson\u2019s blue Dodge Grand Caravan, and Morales and his friends to a black Lincoln Town Car.\nJohnson, a friend and coworker of defendant, testified that he was closely affiliated with, but not a member of, the Two-Two Boys. Johnson stated that after the two groups hurried to their vehicles, they circled each other and he waited for the Lincoln to leave the WalMart parking lot. After the Lincoln turned south onto Cicero Avenue, he waited a minute and did the same. Soon thereafter, he noticed the Lincoln positioned down the road in the exit lane of a service alley of a Target store, also located on Cicero Avenue. Johnson stated that he was afraid that the Lincoln would ram the side of his Caravan if he continued to drive on Cicero, so he pulled into the alley to avoid a possible collision, bringing his van alongside the Lincoln, separated only by a low triangular median. According to Johnson, Morales then opened the rear driver\u2019s-side door of the Lincoln, threw something at his van and got back in the Lincoln. Johnson did not know what the thrown object was but he did not think it was a gun and he did not see anyone in the Lincoln with a weapon. After his van was hit, Johnson then began to drive down the alley. He then heard two gunshots and looked over to see defendant hanging out the front passenger window of the van and facing the Lincoln with a gun in hand. Defendant came back into the van and told Johnson to \u201cf***ing drive\u201d and \u201cget the f*** out of here.\u201d Johnson left the alley and drove down 79th Street toward Harlem Avenue, when a police officer, who had just received a dispatch about the shooting, pulled him over. Defendant handed the gun to Campos and told Johnson to \u201ckeep his f***ing mouth shut\u201d and reminded him that he knew where his fiancee lived and his sister worked. Defendant, Campos, and Cantu then jumped out of the van and fled on foot. Additional police officers arrived and Johnson was questioned but did not say anything to the police about the shooting. After Joyce Brooks was brought to the scene but failed to positively identify the van, Johnson was allowed to leave with several traffic citations. He testified that approximately one month later defendant asked him to burn the van but he refused. On September 1, 2005, officers of the Chicago police department came to Johnson\u2019s residence as part of their investigation of the killing, at which time he told them about the shooting and directed them to the residences of defendant, Campos, and Cantu.\nCampos testified that he was a member of the Two-Two Boys, as was everyone else in the van on the day of the shooting. He stated, in relevant part, that when Johnson pulled alongside the Lincoln in the service alley, he saw Morales jump out of the Lincoln and throw a bottle, or something similar, at the van. When the object struck the van, he ducked down in the rear seat, behind defendant, and could not see anything. Campos stated that as Johnson began to drive down the alley, he heard two gunshots several seconds apart, and when he looked up, he saw defendant coming back into the passenger-side window, telling Johnson to \u201cget the f*** out of here.\u201d As Johnson pulled away, Campos said that defendant laughed and said \u201cthat\u2019s what those pussies get.\u201d Campos stated that when the van was later pulled over on 79th Street, defendant handed him the gun and they both fled. Campos and defendant ran into a nearby residential yard and defendant told him to hide the gun in a pile of wood logs. Campos hid the gun and the two men parted ways. Campos testified that in a subsequent telephone conversation defendant gave him the impression that he had disposed of the gun, telling Campos not to \u201ctrip,\u201d \u201cI got that. Good job.\u201d On cross-examination, Campos said that he did not actually see Morales throw something at the van because he was already ducked down in fear that Morales was shooting at them. On redirect examination, however, he stated that he saw Morales throw something at the van.\nCantu, who was in the back of the van with Campos, testified, in relevant part, that he told Johnson to pull into the service alley alongside the Lincoln. He stated that he saw Morales jump out of the Lincoln, but he then ducked down and did not see Morales throw anything. Cantu was impeached with a sworn statement he gave to the police and with his grand jury testimony, in which he stated that he saw Morales throw something at the van. Cantu further testified that as Johnson pulled away, he saw the Lincoln turn around, at which point Johnson slowed down and defendant leaned out the window and fired a gun once or twice in the direction of the Lincoln. He stated that defendant had his shirt pulled over the bottom half of his face. He also stated that he never saw anyone in the Lincoln with a weapon. Cantu confirmed that when Johnson was later pulled over by the police, defendant handed Campos the gun before fleeing. He stated that he also ran from the police because of the shooting and because he was carrying marijuana. Cantu denied later speaking to defendant about the shooting, but was again impeached with his sworn statement, in which he stated that defendant told him to \u201cjust forget about it\u201d and \u201c[y]ou don\u2019t know nothing.\u201d On cross-examination, Cantu agreed with defense counsel that he saw a metal object in Morales\u2019s hand as he jumped out of the Lincoln, that he thought it was a gun, that he thought Morales was shooting at the van, and that after Johnson began to drive down the alley he thought the Lincoln turned to come after them.\nMorales testified that he was previously a member of the Satan\u2019s Disciples gang, a rival of the Two-Two Boys. He stated that he and several of his friends went to Wal-Mart on July 31, 2005, to buy spray paint. While at Wal-Mart, they saw defendant\u2019s group and exchanged threatening looks for several minutes. They left the store soon after defendant\u2019s group, hurried to their vehicle and left the parking lot, turning south on Cicero Avenue. Morales said that before they pulled out of the parking lot, he saw defendant in the van with his shirt pulled up to cover the bottom half of his face. He testified that they were immediately caught in traffic on Cicero Avenue and pulled into the service alley to turn around when Johnson\u2019s van pulled up next to them. Morales said that he then stepped out of the Lincoln and threw a spray paint can at the van. The van began to drive down the alley as Jaime turned around and into the alley entrance lane. Defendant was ducking down, but he said that he could see someone with a t-shirt pulled over his face leaning out of the front passenger window of the van. Morales did not see defendant fire the gun, but he heard three gunshots. He stated that after the gunshots Jaime immediately pulled out of the alley and drove away.\nJaime testified that he is a member of the Party People gang, a rival of the Two-Two Boys. His testimony largely tracked that of Morales. Jaime stated that he was driving the Lincoln, and after leaving Wal-Mart, he mistakenly turned south onto Cicero Avenue and pulled into the service alley to turn around. Johnson\u2019s van then pulled along side his Lincoln, Morales jumped out and threw the paint can, and the van began to drive down the alley. Jaime stated that he then turned his car around to face the van. Although he initially testified that he did so without the intention of ramming the van, he later admitted that he planned on ramming it if its occupants did anything he perceived to be more threatening. He then saw someone with a partially covered face lean out the front passenger-side window with a gun and shoot at him. Jaime heard two gunshots and immediately turned the car around and drove away.\nThe State presented a number of other witnesses, including police officers and forensic scientists and investigators. They testified, in relevant part, that a spray paint can and two cartridge cases fired from a semiautomatic weapon were recovered at the scene of the shooting. The medical examiner determined that Bonita McConnell was killed by a gunshot wound to the left side of her head. Defendant did not challenge the State\u2019s forensic evidence, which established, inter alia, that the two cartridge cases were fired from the same 9-millimeter weapon and that Morales\u2019s fingerprints were found on the lid of the spray paint can.\nTestifying on his own behalf, defendant admitted that he killed Bonita McConnell, although he stated that he did not know it until Cantu told him a week later. Defendant testified that before entering the alley, Campos handed him the gun that killed McConnell. He stated that when Johnson drove into the alley he saw an object that he believed to be a handgun in Morales\u2019s hand, and when he heard something hit the van, he believed Morales was shooting at them. Defendant stated that at the time of the shooting he was afraid for his life and the lives of his friends. He said that he fired the gun to scare off the men in the Lincoln and he did not intend to hurt or kill anyone. He further said that he shot the gun with his weak hand, did not aim, intended to fire only once, and shot up and to the side of the Lincoln. Defendant denied saying \u201cthat\u2019s what those pussies get,\u201d denied threatening Johnson, denied asking Johnson to burn the van, and denied disposing of the gun after hiding it in the pile of wood logs. Defendant also recounted an incident that occurred in November 2004 when he was shot and a fellow gang member was killed by an unidentified assailant. Defendant stated that this incident contributed to his feeling that his life was in danger on July 31, 2005. On cross-examination, defendant conceded that he shot in the direction of Cicero Avenue.\nOn June 11, 2007, although the trial court allowed a second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter instruction, the jury returned a general verdict finding defendant guilty of the first degree murder of Bonita McConnell. Defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial was denied and he was sentenced to 47 years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.\nANALYSIS\nI. The State Met Its Burden for First Degree Murder\nDefendant first claims the State failed to prove him guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\u201cWhen a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, a criminal conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt. [Citation.] It is not within the purview of the reviewing court to retry a defendant where the sufficiency of the evidence is at issue. [Citation.] Rather, it is the responsibility of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. [Citation.] The relevant question on review is whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]\u201d People v. Rodriguez, 336 Ill. App. 3d 1, 14-15 (2002).\n\u201c[T]he reviewing court must allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution.\u201d People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004).\nDefendant maintains that his conviction should be reduced to the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter because the evidence below established only reckless conduct. The State responds that there is no question defendant killed Bonita McConnell and the evidence sufficiently establishes that he did so with the requisite mental state for a first degree murder conviction.\n\u201cA person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:\n(1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or\n(2) he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another; or\n(3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony other than second degree murder.\u201d 720 ILCS 5/9\u20141(a) (West 2008).\n\u201cA person intends, or acts intentionally or with intent, to accomplish a result or engage in conduct described by the statute defining the offense, when his conscious objective or purpose is to accomplish that result or engage in that conduct.\u201d 720 ILCS 5/4\u20144 (West 2008). \u201cA person knows, or acts knowingly or with knowledge of *** [t]he result of his or her conduct, described by the statute defining the offense, when he or she is consciously aware that such result is practically certain to be caused by his conduct.\u201d 720 ILCS 5/4\u20145 (West 2008). \u201cDetermination of defendant\u2019s mental state may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, and this task is particularly suited to the jury.\u201d People v. Moore, 358 Ill. App. 3d 683, 688 (2005).\n\u20221 Here, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant intended to kill or do great bodily harm to another or that he knew his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to another. It is undisputed that defendant killed Bonita McConnell. His intent to kill can be inferred from the act of firing two bullets in the direction of an occupied car and a crowded street (People v. Smith, 258 Ill. App. 3d 1003, 1027 (1994) (\u201c[t]he intent to murder can be inferred from the act of firing a gun at a person because the natural tendency of such an act is to destroy another\u2019s life\u201d)), and his words and conduct after the shooting. The fact that defendant killed Bonita McConnell, instead of one of the occupants of the Lincoln, does not mean that he acted without the requisite intent. \u201cUnder the doctrine of transferred intent, if a defendant shoots at one person[ ] with the intent to kill, but kills an unintended victim, he may be convicted of the crime of murder for the death of the unintended victim.\u201d People v. Thompson, 313 Ill. App. 3d 510, 516 (2000). Alternatively, it is not unreasonable to conclude that defendant knew that his actions were practically certain to result in the death or substantial injury of another. See People v. Lake, 298 Ill. App. 3d 50, 54 (1998) (\u201cIntentionally firing a weapon at an occupied building is an act that has a natural tendency to cause death or great bodily harm and is of such a character as to defeat any assertion of recklessness.\u201d); accord People v. Mimms, 312 Ill. App. 3d 226, 231 (2000) (defendant presumed to know that firing a gun at an occupied home created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to the occupants of that home).\nAlthough defendant argues that his testimony established that he fired up and away from the Lincoln and that he did not intend to kill or injure anyone, the jury\u2019s apparent decision to disregard his account was not unreasonable in light of the other witnesses\u2019 statements and the physical evidence. For example, the death of Bonita McConnell, who was driving behind and perpendicular to the Lincoln, can support the conclusion that defendant did not fire up and away from the Lincoln and Cicero Avenue; a conclusion also supported by the testimony of Johnson and Jaime. Further, the fact that defendant had the gun and pulled his shirt over his face before entering the alley strongly suggests that he intended to do harm. It was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude that defendant fired at the Lincoln with the intent to kill or cause great bodily harm to its occupants, or that he acted with the knowledge that doing so was practically certain to result in the death or substantial injury of another.\nIn reaching this conclusion, the court rejects defendant\u2019s assertion that this case is analogous to People v. Andersch, 107 Ill. App. 3d 810 (1982), and People v. Hoover, 250 Ill. App. 3d 338 (1993), both of which stated that pointing a loaded gun at another can constitute recklessness. Andersch and Hoover involved defendants who accidentally discharged their weapons. Here, defendant did not accidentally fire his weapon. Defendant\u2019s argument that Andersch and Hoover are controlling because in those cases the \u201cdefendants consciously disregarded the substantial risks in pointing a loaded gun at another person, just as Garcia consciously disregarded the substantial risks presented by firing the gun in the direction of the Lincoln and Cicero Avenue,\u201d is unconvincing. Given the facts presented at trial, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that defendant intentionally fired his weapon at the Lincoln in the direction of Cicero Avenue and that he did so with the intent or knowledge required of first degree murder.\nII. Second Degree Murder Is Not Warranted\n\u20222 Defendant contends, alternatively, that we should reduce his conviction to second degree murder because the evidence establishes that he acted under an unreasonable belief that the use of deadly force was justified. A second degree murder conviction is appropriate where, inter alia, \u201cat the time of the killing [the defendant] believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code [(720 ILCS 5/7\u20141 et seq. (West 2008))], but his or her belief [was] unreasonable.\u201d 720 ILCS 5/9\u20142(a)(2) (West 2008). Defendant bears the burden of proving this mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence. 720 ILCS 5/9\u20142(c) (West 2008). In other words, \u201c[o]nce the State has proven first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence *** that he believed that the circumstances justified using self-defense, but that his belief was unreasonable.\u201d People v. Hawkins, 296 Ill. App. 3d 830, 836 (1998).\n\u201cTo establish self-defense, the defendant must show some evidence that unlawful force was threatened against him; the danger of harm was imminent; he was not the aggressor; that he actually believed that a danger existed, force was necessary to avert the danger, and the type and amount of force was necessary; and that his beliefs were reasonable. [Citations.] While the law does not require the aggressor to be armed for self-defense to be justified, it must appear that the aggressor is capable of inflicting serious bodily harm without the use of a deadly weapon, and is intending to do so. [Citations.]\u201d Id. at 837.\nDefendant maintains that because the evidence established that he had an actual, albeit unreasonable, belief in the necessity of using deadly force in self-defense, the trial court erred in not reducing his conviction to second degree murder. The State responds that there was ample evidence to support the conclusion that defendant did not believe his actions were necessary to protect his life and, therefore, that he was not acting in self-defense. We agree.\n\u201cWfliether a killing is justified under the law of self-defense is a question of fact [citations], and the fact finder is not required to accept as true the defendant\u2019s evidence in support of that defense [citations]. Instead, the trier of fact is obliged to consider the probability or improbability of the evidence, the circumstances surrounding the event, and all of the witnesses\u2019 testimony. [Citations.]\u201d People v. Huddleston, 243 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 1018-19 (1993).\nIn the case sub judice, defendant offered some evidence that he was acting in self-defense. The occupants of both vehicles confirmed that they belonged to rival gangs, that the groups exchanged menacing looks at the Wal-Mart, that Morales jumped out of the Lincoln with something in his hand when Johnson\u2019s van drove into the alley, that something then hit the van, and that the Lincoln turned to face the van as the latter drove away. However, the State supplied testimony rebutting defendant\u2019s self-defense claim. For instance, the State introduced uncontradicted testimony that defendant had a gun and pulled his shirt over his face before entering the alley and that Johnson was driving away when defendant shot at the Lincoln. The State also introduced testimony that after firing the gun at the Lincoln, defendant laughed and said \u201cthat\u2019s what those pussies get,\u201d then fled from the police, told his friends to keep quiet about the incident, and destroyed or tried to destroy evidence. None of this behavior suggests self-defense. Given this testimony, it was reasonable for the jury to disregard defendant\u2019s testimony and conclude that defendant was the aggressor. We therefore affirm defendant\u2019s first degree murder conviction.\nIII. The State\u2019s Opening, Closing and Rebuttal Remarks Did Not Constitute Plain Error and Defendant Forfeited Any Objection to Those Remarks on Appeal\n\u20223 Finally, defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial because the State made prejudicial remarks during its opening statement and closing and rebuttal arguments. The State responds that defendant waived any challenge to the remarks made at trial by his failure to preserve his objections. \u201cIn order to preserve an issue for review, the general rule is that a defendant must both object at trial and file a written post-trial motion raising the issue.\u201d People v. Anderson, 250 Ill. App. 3d 439, 451 (1993). Defendant does not contest that he failed to properly preserve his objections by objecting to the State\u2019s comments at trial and raising those objections in his posttrial motion. Instead, he asserts that the State\u2019s remarks constitute plain error and therefore avoid the general forfeiture rule. We disagree.\n\u201cPlain error is a narrow and limited exception to the general waiver rule.\u201d People v. Pastorino, 91 Ill. 2d 178, 188 (1982).\n\u201c[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\u2019s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.\u201d People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007).\nThe first prong of this test applies \u201cwhere the evidence in a case is so closely balanced that the jury\u2019s guilty verdict may have resulted from the error and not the evidence.\u201d People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 178 (2005). With regard to the second prong, \u201cplain error review is equated with structural error.\u201d People v. Brazziel, 406 Ill. App. 3d 412, 427 (2010).\n\u201cAn error is typically designated as \u2018structural\u2019 and requiring automatic reversal only if it necessarily renders a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or unreliable in determining guilt or innocence. [Citation.] The Supreme Court has held an error is structural only in a \u2018very limited class of cases.\u2019 [Citation.] Structural errors include a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction. [Citation.]\u201d People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 12-13 (2010).\nUnder both prongs \u201cthe burden of persuasion remains with the defendant.\u201d Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 187. The court will consider each of the complained-of statements in turn.\nIn its opening statement, the State said that Bonita McConnell\u2019s death was \u201ca result of nonsense that occurs in our streets, nonsense that has to stop, nonsense that stops with your verdict, nonsense that will stop when you come back with a verdict for the offense of first degree murder.\u201d Defendant argues that this statement was designed to appeal to the jury\u2019s prejudices and constituted plain error.\n\u201cThe purpose of an opening statement is to apprise the jury of what each party expects the evidence to prove. [Citation.] An opening statement may include a discussion of the expected evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence. [Citations.] No statement may be made in opening which counsel does not intend to prove or cannot prove. [Citation.] *** Reversible error occurs only where the prosecutor\u2019s opening comments are attributable to deliberate misconduct of the prosecutor and result in substantial prejudice to the defendant. [Citation.]\u201d (Emphasis in original.) People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81, 127 (1998).\nAlthough argumentative comments are generally improper in opening statements, the evidence in this case was not closely balanced such that the State\u2019s comments threatened to tip the balance against defendant. Defendant admitted that he killed Bonita McConnell, and for the reasons stated above, we do not believe that the evidence regarding his self-defense claim was close. Nor is the error complained of structural. We find that the State\u2019s opening remarks did not constitute plain error and defendant forfeited his objection to them.\nThe same can be said of the State\u2019s comments in its closing and rebuttal arguments, in which it referred to defendant\u2019s self-defense theory as \u201cridiculous\u201d and \u201cinsulting,\u201d and referenced any second degree murder conviction as \u201ca travesty\u201d of justice. Defendant argues that in making these statements, the State improperly ridiculed his theory of the case and suggested that the defense was lying and hiding the truth. Defendant also complains of statements made by the State in its rebuttal urging that the jury do, and that Bonita McConnell and her family deserve, justice.\n\u201cIt is well settled that great latitude is afforded a prosecutor during closing argument [citation], and that the propriety of the prosecution\u2019s remarks is generally left to the discretion of the trial court ***. In closing argument, the prosecution may base its argument on the evidence presented or reasonable inferences therefrom [citation]; respond to those comments by defense counsel which clearly invite or provoke a response [citation]; comment on the credibility of the defense witnesses [citation]; denounce the activities of defendants and urge that justice be administered [citation]; highlight inconsistencies in defendant\u2019s argument [citation]; and comment on defendant\u2019s absence at trial [citation].\u201d People v. Morrison, 137 Ill. App. 3d 171, 184 (1985).\nIn the instant case, we have carefully reviewed the closing and rebuttal arguments, paying particular attention to the remarks of which defendant complains, and conclude that the State\u2019s comments do not constitute plain error. The remarks were either within the bounds of a proper closing or rebuttal argument or, if improper, cannot be said to have impacted the jury\u2019s decision in light of the evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt. See People v. Gray, 252 Ill. App. 3d 362, 368-69 (1993) (prosecutor\u2019s characterization of defendant\u2019s theory of the case as \u201cso ridiculous that it isn\u2019t even worthy of comment\u201d not reversible error); People v. Belvedere, 72 Ill. App. 3d 998, 1020 (1979) (prosecutor\u2019s exhortation to jury not to \u201ccop-out\u201d by returning voluntary manslaughter verdict based on defendant\u2019s testimony not reversible error because it concerned defendant\u2019s credibility). This is especially true in light of the trial court\u2019s detailed jury instructions, in which it stated, inter alia, that \u201c[n] either opening statements nor closing arguments are evidence and any statement or arguments made by the attorney which is not based on the evidence should be disregarded.\u201d The State\u2019s remarks did not constitute plain error; therefore, defendant forfeited any objection to those remarks on appeal.\nCONCLUSION\nFor all the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant\u2019s conviction for first degree murder.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE EPSTEIN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Unsinn, and Therese Bissell, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Anita M. Alvarez, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Michelle Katz, Peter Fischer, and Kathleen Warnick, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCOS GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201407\u20142317\nOpinion filed January 14, 2011.\nRehearing denied March 1, 2011.\nMichael J. Pelletier, Patricia Unsinn, and Therese Bissell, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nAnita M. Alvarez, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Michelle Katz, Peter Fischer, and Kathleen Warnick, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0195-01", "first_page_order": 211, "last_page_order": 223 }