Find Legal Information

FOURTH DIVISION
June 26, 2003

JUSTICE KARNEZIS delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial, defendant Damaris Cuadrado was convicted of solicitation ofmurder for hire in violation of section 8-1.2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/8-1.2(West 1998)) and was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. She now appeals and assertsnumerous errors⁽¹⁾ requiring reversal of her conviction including: (I) the trial court erroneouslydenied her motion to dismiss the indictment; (II) her conviction is invalid because the evidenceis insufficient as a matter of law; and (III) she was denied her right to confront State witnessBenjamin Jiminez. We affirm.

[The following is not publishable under Supreme Court Rule 23]

[The preceding excerpt is not publishable under Supreme Court Rule 23]

BACKGROUND

Benjamin Jiminez (Benjamin) testified that he met defendant for the first time inSeptember 1997 when he was introduced to her by Pedro Trinidad. Benjamin pulled up toTrinidad's house and Trinidad approached Benjamin's car and told Benjamin that defendantwas looking for someone to kill her husband. Benjamin agreed to speak with defendant.

Defendant got into Benjamin's car and told Benjamin that she wanted her husbandmurdered because he was abusive. Benjamin noticed that defendant was upset but inquiredwhy defendant did not just divorce her husband. Defendant responded that her husband hadthreatened to take their son away from her and she did not want to take that chance. Defendant then offered to pay Benjamin $10,000. Benjamin said he would look into it. Benjamin gave defendant his pager number and the two agreed to meet again.

A week later, defendant paged Benjamin and set up a meeting. Prior to their meeting,Benjamin set up a micro cassette recorder in his car with the hope that he would be able torecord his conversation with defendant. Once defendant was inside the car, Benjaminpretended that he forgot defendant's name so that she would say it for the tape, which she did.Benjamin verified that defendant did not want her husband beaten, but wanted him killed. Defendant replied that she needed him "gone" and wanted him "out of the picture." Benjaminagain told defendant that he would look into it but had not found anybody yet.

After the meeting, Benjamin wanted to make a copy of the tape. He went to his mother,who worked for a security firm to see if she had the right equipment. She did not, but inquiredabout the contents of the tape. Benjamin explained to his mother that the tape contained aconversation with a woman who was attempting to hire someone to kill her husband. Benjaminexplained that he was going to blackmail defendant with the tape. Benjamin's mother listenedto the tape and warned her son not to get involved.

In early December 1997, defendant paged Benjamin and they met. They talked aboutwhether Benjamin had found anyone to kill her husband and Benjamin said he had not. Sometime after December 14, 1997, defendant again paged Benjamin and told him not to worryabout looking for someone.⁽²⁾

The two met shortly thereafter and defendant told Benjamin that she had already hadthe job done. Benjamin then informed her that he had secretly tape recorded their earlierconversation. Benjamin then told defendant that even though the job had already been done,he wanted money or he would go to the police with the tape. Defendant told Benjamin that shedid not have the money because she had just paid the person "to do it" but that she would workon getting it.

Thereafter, defendant gave Benjamin $3,000 in cash and demanded the tape. Benjamin told defendant he would give her the tape when she gave him more money. Twodays later, defendant gave Benjamin an additional $1,000 in cash. Benjamin then let defendantlisten to the tape. After listening to the tape, defendant tore up the tape and threw it into asewer. Defendant then told Benjamin that she would meet with him one more time and givehim more money.

On May 22, 1998, defendant and Benjamin agreed to meet. Defendant failed to appearfor the meeting so Benjamin went to defendant's house and stood across the street. Defendantapproached Benjamin and told him that she did not have the money yet. As the two weretalking, a man approached. Defendant introduced him as her boyfriend, Darryl Mitchell. Heand Benjamin shook hands. Defendant told Benjamin she would meet him later.

The next day, defendant paged Benjamin and told him to meet her. They met anddefendant told Benjamin to follow her in his car so she could get his money. After driving for atime, defendant stopped her car at 57^th and Sawyer. Both defendant and Benjamin exited theirvehicles. Defendant told Benjamin to wait while she got the money. After Benjamin got backinto his car, Darryl Mitchell and another man approached and started shooting at him. Benjamin was shot in the spine and was instantly paralyzed.

Subsequently, Benjamin was hospitalized and spent three months in rehabilitation. Inmid-June 1998, he told his mother what had happened and she called detectives, who tookBenjamin's statement and showed him numerous photographs. He identified Darryl Mitchell asthe person who shot him. He also later identified Mitchell in a lineup.

On October 21, 1998, police conducted a confidential overhear of a telephone callBenjamin made to defendant. During that conversation, defendant attempted to pretend thatshe was someone other than Damaris Cuadrado, but eventually exposed her real identity whenBenjamin mentioned that he had another copy of the tape. During that conversation, defendantdenied killing her husband but agreed to meet Benjamin the next day. Benjamin did not appearfor the meeting.

Teresa Jiminez (Teresa), Benjamin's mother, testified she listened to the micro cassettetape that Benjamin had in September or October of 1997. On that tape, she heard her son'svoice and another female voice but did not recognize the female voice. Shortly after she heardthe tape, she saw her son with a bundle of hundred dollar bills although her son did not have ajob.

Teresa also testified that she was present when there was a confidential overhear of aconversation between her son and defendant in October 1998. She subsequently listened tothat tape and recognized the female voice as the same voice on the tape that her son hadplayed for her.

After her son was shot, he initially told her that he had been shot by gangbangers. However, in the middle of June 1998 Teresa called the police after having a conversation withher son wherein Benjamin told her that defendant had him shot and that he did not want her toget away with it.

Later at the police station, Teresa heard police questioning someone in the other room. Teresa testified that she recognized the voice as the woman she had heard on Benjamin's tapeand during the interception of a private communication.

Detective John Murray of the Chicago police department testified that on December 14,1997, he was assigned to investigate a homicide. When he arrived at the scene, he observed aHispanic male, identified as Edgardo Cuadrado, lying face down on the grass. It appeared thathe had been shot several times. Defendant was interviewed and did not mention BenjaminJiminez or any recording.

On June 17, 1998, Detective Murray received a telephone call from Teresa Jiminez. Heand his partner went to the Schwab Rehabilitation Institute and spoke with Benjamin and hismother. As a result of his conversations, Detective Murray contacted postal inspector KevinO'Brien at the United State Post Office and requested a series of photographs fromemployment identification cards. Benjamin later identified a photograph of Darryl Mitchell fromthe United State Post Office employment identification photographs.

On October 21, 1998, Detective Murray obtained a court order allowing him to record aconversation between Benjamin and defendant. The equipment was set up at Benjamin'smother's condominium. Two calls were placed to defendant's home wherein Benjamin spokewith defendant. Those calls were tape recorded. Teresa and Benjamin listened to the tape.

Surveillance was set up around defendant's Palos Hills condominium and several otheraddresses where defendant was known to visit. Defendant later voluntarily came to the policestation.

Lawrence Rusinyak, vice-president of the claims department with Primerica LifeInsurance Company, also testified. He testified that a life insurance policy in the amount of$240,000 had been issued to Edgardo Cuadrado in 1995, with his wife, defendant, as theprimary beneficiary. The $240,000 was paid out on January 29, 1998.

At the close of all the evidence, a jury found defendant guilty of solicitation of murder forhire. She was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. It is from this judgment that defendantnow appeals.

ANALYSIS

I. Sufficiency of the Indictment

Defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the indictment in this case and argues thatit fails to state an offense as required by section 111-3(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of1963. 725 ILCS 5/111-3(a) (West 1998).

Defendant was convicted of solicitation of murder for hire in violation of section 8-1.2 ofthe Criminal Code of 1961. 720 ILCS 5/8-1.2 (West 1998). Section 8-1.2 states that a personcommits the offense of solicitation of murder for hire when he or she, "with the intent that theoffense of first degree murder be committed, he procures another to commit that offensepursuant to any contract, agreement, understanding, command or request for money oranything of value." (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 5/8-1.2 (West 1998). The charginginstrument in the instant case reads:

"DAMARIS CUADRADO * * * committed the offense of SOLICITATION OFMURDER FOR HIRE in that [SHE], WITH THE INTENT THAT THE OFFENSE OFFIRST DEGREE MURDER BE COMMITTED, TO WIT: THAT EDGARDO CUADRADOBE KILLED, SOLICITED BENJAMIN JIMINEZ TO COMMIT SAID MURDER,PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT FOR MONEY IN VIOLATION OFCHAPTER 720, SECTION 5/8-1.2 OF THE ILLINOIS COMPILED STATUES, 1994, ASAMENDED, AND contrary to the Statute, and against the peace and dignity of the samePeople of the State of Illinois." (Emphasis added.)

Defendant's argument regarding the sufficiency of the indictment centers around theState's substitution of the word "solicit" for the word "procure." Because the statute containsthe word "procure" and the state charged "solicit," defendant maintains, the charging instrumentfails to state an essential element of solicitation of murder for hire.

A criminal defendant has a fundamental right under both the United States Constitution(U.S. Const., amend. VI) and the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,