Find Legal Information

FOURTH DIVISION
March 31, 2004

PRESIDING JUSTICE QUINN delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Roel Salinas, and two codefendants, Ruben Alvarezand Miguel Martinez, were indicted on two counts of first-degreemurder for the shooting death of Arnold Mireles. Defendant wasindicted on two additional counts of solicitation of murder forhire and one count of solicitation of murder. Following asimultaneous jury trial consisting of three separate juries,defendant was convicted on two counts of solicitation of murder forhire and sentenced to concurrent 40-year prison terms. Alvarez wasconvicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to an extendedprison term of 80 years and Martinez was convicted of first-degreemurder and sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing (1) theState failed to prove him guilty of the offense of solicitation ofmurder for hire beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the circuit courtcommitted plain error by allowing the presentation of a portion oftestimony in defendant's case before the wrong jury; (3) thecircuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress hisconfession; (4) the admission of Alvarez's confession beforedefendant's jury was a violation of Bruton v. United States, 391U.S. 123, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476, 88 S. Ct. 1620 (1968); and (5) he wasdeprived of a fair trial due to prejudicial remarks by the Stateduring closing argument. For the following reasons, we affirm. Wewill address defendant's reasonable doubt argument in this opinion. Defendant's other contentions will be addressed in a dispositionalorder under Supreme Court Rule 23 (166 2d. R. 23) issuedcontemporaneously with this opinion.

On the evening of December 29, 1997, Mireles was walking homefrom work when he was approached from behind and shot once in theback of his head. He died as a result of his wound.

Mireles was a community activist who worked at the Juan DiegoCommunity Center (the Center), located at 8802 South ExchangeAvenue in Chicago. As an employee of the Center, Mireles tookphotographs of dilapidated buildings and made reports to thehousing court in order to have the buildings' owners make thenecessary repairs to the properties. Mireles' reports often citedproperties owned by defendant, which caused defendant to appear inhousing court on many occasions, whereafter he was jailed andordered to pay fines until his properties were brought intocompliance with municipal building codes.

One of defendant's properties that was the focus of Mireles'efforts was located at 8822 South Exchange Avenue. Martinezresided at that address with his wife, Sema, and Alvarez, his closefriend. At a December 19, 1997, housing court appearance,defendant presented the court with a handwritten warranty deeddated July 10, 1997, which showed that he conveyed the property toMartinez. Thereafter, Martinez received notices of municipal codeviolations containing complaints gathered by Mireles, whichrequired him to appear in housing court.

At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress hisconfession, Chicago police detectives Michael Baker and WilliamFoster and Chicago police sergeant Michael Kennedy each testifiedthat, on January 15, 1998, they were assigned to investigate themurder of Mireles. Baker, Foster and Kennedy each intervieweddefendant at separate times after advising him of his Mirandarights, which defendant waived. Baker, Foster and Kennedyconsistently testified that they neither hit defendant norprevented him from sleeping. They did not threaten defendant orpromise him that he would only be a witness and not a suspect. Defendant was not shown statements from the codefendants. At notime during the interview did defendant appear to be physically ormentally exhausted. Defendant never asked to speak to an attorney.

Chicago police officer Robert Tovar testified that, on January15, 1998, at 4:50 p.m., he conducted a polygraph examination ofdefendant. Prior to the examination, defendant signed a formstating that he voluntarily agreed to take the examination. Following the examination, Tovar confronted defendant with respectto certain issues in which he felt defendant was untruthful. Defendant then provided Tovar with a statement regarding hisinvolvement in the murder of Mireles.

Cook County Assistant State's Attorney (ASA) Robert Milantestified that he and ASA Tom Mahoney interviewed defendant afteradvising him of his Miranda rights. Following the interview,defendant agreed to provide a statement. Defendant signed each ofthe eight pages of the statement. Defendant was allowed to makechanges to the statement, which he initialed. Defendant alsoidentified and initialed two photographs of codefendants Alvarezand Martinez.

Defendant testified that when he was brought to the policestation, he was aware of Mireles' death. Detective Baker slappeddefendant in the head three or four times. The interrogatingpolice officers asked defendant if he had paid Martinez to killMireles. Defendant asked to speak to his lawyer, but the officersdid not allow him to make a telephone call. Defendant testifiedthat he had not slept. ASAs Milan and Mahoney did not advise himof his Miranda rights. Milan told defendant that he was only goingto be a witness. Milan promised defendant that if he signed somepapers, he would be allowed to go home. Defendant read only one ortwo pages of the "report" that Milan gave him. Defendant thensigned the papers because he thought he would be released. Defendant did not tell Milan that Baker hit him.

Following the presentation of evidence and argument, thecircuit court denied defendant's motion to suppress his confession. At trial, the following pertinent evidence was presented todefendant's jury.

Donald Rowans testified that on December 29, 1997, he was withhis friend, Michael Quiroz, at Quiroz's residence, located at 8812South Exchange Avenue. At approximately 11 p.m., Rowans heard onegunshot, whereafter he and Quiroz left Quiroz's apartment. Whilewalking, Rowans saw a man lying face-down on the ground near thecorner of 89th Street and Exchange Avenue. Rowans approached theman and observed that he was bleeding and not breathing. Quirozflagged down a passing car and told the motorist to call thepolice. After Rowans and Quiroz spoke to the police, Rowans andhis girlfriend, Patricia, went to a restaurant where they saw bothAlvarez and Martinez. Rowans testified that Alvarez was a memberof the Bishops gang. Rowans also testified that Martinez residedat 8822 South Exchange Avenue with Martinez's wife, Sema, andAlvarez.

At the restaurant, Rowans told Alvarez and Martinez that"somebody got killed on the corner." Alvarez and Martinez gaveRowans and Patricia a ride home in Martinez's car. Rowans learnedafterward that the deceased was Mireles. Later that night, Rowansand Quiroz went to Martinez's house, where he saw Sema, five othergirls and Alvarez's brother, Juan Santo. While there, the policearrived and, again, Rowans spoke to them.

On December 30, 1997, at approximately 6 p.m., Rowans returnedto Martinez's house. Alvarez and Rowans then went outside. Alvarez told Rowans to look for a shell casing near Rowans'gangway. Later than night, Alvarez went to Rowans' apartment. There, Rowans told Alvarez the he heard a gunshot prior to findingMireles' body and that it sounded like it came from a .38-caliber or .44-caliber weapon. Alvarez responded, "no, it was a 9[millimeter weapon]." Rowans testified that Alvarez told him the9-millimeter "was a sweet gun and that he hate[d] to lose it." Alvarez also told Rowans about how he shot Mireles. According toRowans, Alvarez stated that he had "seen the guy walking down thestreet, and he ran in the house and grabbed his hoody, and he leftout and ran back down the street. And he said he was going toshoot him from [Rowans'] gangway but he crept up on him from theback and got within a few feet and shot him." After Alvarez shotMireles in the head, Mireles fell to his knees and Alvarez turnedand ran toward Rowans' apartment. Alvarez's gun jammed, and whenhe unjammed it, a shell casing fell. Alvarez did not have time tolook for the casing and continued running. Alvarez told Rowansthat he used a Glock handgun to shoot Mireles and that Mireles"never knew what hit him."

On cross-examination, Rowans testified that he did not knowdefendant personally at the time of Mireles' murder. Rowans wasnot a close friend of Alvarez's, but nevertheless, Alvarezconfessed to Rowans that he shot Mireles. Alvarez's description ofthe events conflicted. He had told Rowans that he shot Mirelesfrom a gangway, but also stated that he shot Mireles from closerange. Rowans did not challenge Alvarez's separate accounts of theshooting. Alvarez never told Rowans that someone was going to payhim for killing Mireles. Rowans did not know who Mireles was andhad never spoken to him. Rowans told police about Alvarez'sconfession one month after the murder when officers found him andbrought him to the police station.

Marvin Wilkins testified that on December 29, 1997, atapproximately 11 p.m., he heard a gunshot while sitting in Rowans'living room at 8842 South Exchange Avenue. Wilkins then opened awindow in the apartment and saw two men dressed in black, hoodedsweaters running from Exchange Avenue toward an alley. Wilkinsobserved that one man was heavier than the other and that theirhands were light in color. Wilkins testified that, when he saw themen running, he did not see a gun in either of the men's hands. According to Wilkins, the men were not African-American. He couldnot see their faces. Wilkins testified that he believed the twomen he saw were either white or Mexican. Wilkins also saw a bodylying on the ground at the corner of 89th Street and ExchangeAvenue.

Cindy Garcia testified that on December 29, 1997, she residedat 8822 South Exchange Avenue with Martinez, Sema, Alvarez and fourother girls, Rita Bautista, Mabel Rodriguez and Evelyn and LorenaCarbajal. She lived in Martinez's apartment because she ran awayfrom her parents' home. According to Cindy, Alvarez and LittleCasper were Bishop gang members. Martinez worked as a roofer. Cindy testified that the building at 8822 South Exchange Avenue wasin bad condition. The walls were cracked, there was no heatavailable and, if Cindy wanted to take a shower, she had to fill upa bucket of water and pour it over herself. Cindy stayed in asecond bedroom in the apartment with the four other girls.

Cindy testified that during the evening of December 29, 1997,Martinez and Alvarez left the apartment and returned with food foreveryone. Later that night, Martinez and Alvarez entered thesecond bedroom and took a blanket. Alvarez was wearing black pantsand a black "hoodie." Martinez and Alvarez then left theapartment. Fifteen minutes later, Cindy heard one gunshot whilesitting in the second bedroom. After another 20 minutes hadpassed, Martinez and Alvarez returned to the apartment, Alvarezstill wearing the same clothing as when he had left. Alvarezentered the second bedroom, returned the blanket and asked thegirls for their shoe sizes. He then changed clothes with Rita andleft the apartment with Martinez. The girls checked the blanketfor bullet holes, but did not find any.

When Martinez and Alvarez returned to the apartment, Evelynaccused Alvarez of killing the man on the corner. Alvarez told her"to shut the fuck up." Cindy testified that several days later,she was with Mabel, Rita and Evelyn when Martinez, Alvarez andRobert Espinoza, also known as Casper, arrived. Alvarez told thegirls that "someone was snitching on his name" and that "somethingwas going to happen for whoever snitched."

Rita testified that she was a 17-year-old runaway living withMartinez at 8822 South Exchange Avenue on December 29, 1997. Ritastated that Alvarez was a member of the Bishops gang. While shelived in Martinez's apartment, she never saw either Martinez orAlvarez working to improve the property. She described the poorcondition of the property, stating that the house lacked windows,the ceiling was falling, the shower was broken and cockroaches wereprevalent. Rita's description of the events that occurred onDecember 29, 1997, was consistent with Cindy's testimony. Ritaexchanged clothes with Alvarez in the bathroom after he determinedthat she had the largest shoe size among the five girls inMartinez's apartment. When Rita asked Alvarez why he wanted toexchange clothes with her, he told her "just to put them on." Several days later, Alvarez told the girls that he would find outwho snitched on him once his lawyer gave him a discovery packageand that "something bad might happen" to that person. Rita alsotestified that she saw Alvarez carrying a black gun in hiswaistband "almost every day." She saw the gun a week prior to theshooting and then saw it afterwards at a New Year's Eve party. Rita made an in-court identification of Alvarez's gun. Ritaexplained that she recognized Alvarez's gun because she had seen itso many times and once had taken it away from him.

Mark Loevy Reyes testified that he is an attorney for the Cityof Chicago assigned to housing court and that the city had filednumerous building code violation complaints against defendant andthe properties he owned. Reyes described the buildings as being indeplorable condition with violations ranging from peeling and lead-based paint, to exposed electrical wiring, missing smoke detectorsand collapsing walls and ceilings. Reyes testified that defendantwas represented by counsel in most of the matters and that whilemost, if not all, of the cases were dismissed because defendantmade some effort to correct the violations, it was neverthelessnecessary to enjoin use of two of the apartment buildings untilthey became habitable. Reyes stated that Mireles always waspresent in housing court for defendant's cases and that he was mosthelpful to the city in pursuing these matters. Defendant once wasjailed for nonpayment of fines with an amount of fines assessedtotaling approximately $10,000 to $15,000 at the time of Mireles'death.

Chicago police detective John Murray testified that he wasassigned to investigate Mireles' death on January 13, 1998. Murraylocated Crispin Uvalle and brought him to the police station forquestioning. Murray showed Uvalle a photograph of Alvarez. Afterspeaking to Uvalle, Murray attempted to locate Alvarez.

On January 14, 1998, at approximately 4 a.m., Detective Murrayproceeded to 8822 South Exchange Avenue, where he spoke todefendant and Sema, who both agreed to be transported to the policestation for questioning. Defendant was advised of his Mirandarights and was interviewed by Murray and his partner, Detective BobRodriguez. Following Martinez's interview, Murray continuedsearching for Alvarez and the five girls who had lived withMartinez. Murray went to Casper's house in Cicero and, afterspeaking to Delores Espinoza, Casper's mother, he went to aresidence in Cicero located at 1803 South 61st Court. Murraysearched a closet in the basement, where he found Alvarez hidingbehind clothes. Murray also found a 9-millimeter Glocksemiautomatic pistol hidden behind a mirror by the bar. Murraytook Alvarez into custody without incident.

Detective Murray testified that he interviewed Alvarez afteradvising him of his Miranda rights. Murray also interviewedCasper, which led to a second conversation with Alvarez. Murraythen located and interviewed Cindy, Rita, Mabel, Lorena and Evelynat the police station. Following those interviews, Murraycontacted the felony review unit of the Cook County State'sAttorney's office. Murray also sought the location of defendant. Martinez and Alvarez were charged with first-degree murder in theMireles case. Murray identified the Glock 9-millimetersemiautomatic pistol and bullets that were loaded into the weapon,which he recovered from 1803 South 61st Court.

Chicago police detective Paul Alfini testified on directexamination that on December 29, 1997, he spoke with Rowans aboutthe shooting. Alfini canvassed the crime scene, but found nophysical evidence. Thereafter, Alfini went to Martinez's residenceand spoke to both Martinez and Rowans. On January 15, 1998, Alfinispoke to Detective Rodriguez about the status of the investigationin the Mireles case. Alfini then located defendant at hisworkplace and brought him to the police station for questioning.

Following cross-examination of Detective Alfini before onlythe Martinez jury, the circuit court excused the Martinez jury andstated, "[o]nly Mr. Alvarez's jury is in the courtroom." Therecord notes the presence of the Alvarez jury rather thandefendant's jury for the continuation of Alfini's testimony,however, the transcript also shows that defendant's attorney cross-examined Alfini.

Detective Alfini continued to testify on direct examinationthat he was present in an interview room with defendant andDetective Baker. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights,which he waived. Defendant stated that he knew Mireles fromprevious encounters in court due to building code violations ondefendant's properties. Defendant stated that "he had nothingagainst Arnold Mireles," and that Mireles was "just doing his job." Defendant had sold Martinez his property at 8822 South ExchangeAvenue and helped Martinez get a loan. Martinez previously workedfor defendant by fixing defendant's buildings. Defendant statedthat he did not know Alvarez. Defendant denied any involvement inthe murder of Mireles and stated that he had returned from Mexicoon January 12, 1998.

Detective Alfini testified that Detective Baker left theinterview room, showed a photograph of defendant to Alvarez andreturned to defendant's interview room. Defendant again deniedthat he knew Alvarez.

Defendant's attorney questioned Detective Alfini on cross-examination. Alfini testified that during defendant's interview,he did not show a picture of Alvarez to defendant.

Detective Francis Heslin testified that, on January 15, 1998,he was assigned to investigate the Mireles murder with DetectiveKennedy. At 9 a.m. that morning, Heslin interviewed defendantafter advising him of his Miranda rights. Defendant waived hisrights and stated that the building code violations as reported byMireles cost him approximately $12,000 to $14,000, including courtcosts and attorney fees. Defendant never argued with Mireles withrespect to the violations. Defendant also told Heslin and Kennedythat he was jailed three times for the violations and eventuallywas forced to "give away" several of his properties. Defendantstated that from December 26, 1997, to January 6, 1998, he visitedhis father in Texas.

Officer Tovar testified that, on January 15, 1998, heinterviewed defendant after advising him of his Miranda rights. Defendant told Tovar that a few days after he returned from Texas,he met with Martinez. Martinez told defendant that "he took careof Mireles," hid the gun and wanted $2,000. Defendant askedMartinez for proof that he killed Mireles and stated that he would"wait until things settle down [to] see what happens." Defendanttold Tovar that Martinez threatened Mireles. On December 19, 1997,when defendant was in housing court, Mireles told defendant that hehad taken pictures of graffiti on buildings that defendant owns. Defendant told Tovar that as a result of the fines assessed on hisproperties, he was "going to go bankrupt." Defendant stated thathe owed over $85,000 and "now society will pay that." Defendant'sdaughter spoke to defendant on New Year's Day and told him that"they had killed Arnold Mireles." Defendant told Tovar that thepolice never found the gun, although detectives told him that thegun was thrown into Lake Michigan. Defendant told Tovar thatMartinez hid the gun and that the police would not be able to findit.

Chicago police sergeant Armando Ramirez testified that onJanuary 15, 1998, he and Detective Foster interviewed defendant at8 p.m. Defendant told Ramirez and Foster that he met with Martinezin September or October 1997 to discuss the problems he was havingwith Mireles. Martinez told defendant that he would "take care ofMireles" for $2,000. Defendant told Martinez that he would givehim $2,000 at Mireles' wake. When Martinez told defendant that hekilled Mireles, defendant gave him $50 because he was not sure thatMartinez was responsible for Mireles' death and wanted to confirmMartinez's participation. When Ramirez showed defendant a pictureof Alvarez, defendant recognized Alvarez and stated that Alvarezworked on his building at 8756 South Houston Avenue during thefirst week of December. Alvarez told defendant that he would "takecare of Mireles" for $2,000. Defendant agreed to pay Alvarez thatamount. Ramirez then contacted ASAs Milan and Mahoney.

ASA Milan testified that on January 15, 1998, he and ASAMahoney interviewed defendant after advising him of his Mirandarights, which defendant waived. Defendant provided a statement toMilan. Milan allowed defendant to read the eight-page statementand make any necessary corrections, additions or deletions. Defendant corrected the statement and signed every page. Also,defendant identified Martinez and Alvarez in two photographs as theindividuals he hired to kill Mireles. The statement was publishedto the jury and included the following.

From 1995 to 1997, Mireles constantly reported defendant forbuilding code violations with respect to the four buildings heowned. In 1995 and 1996, defendant was forced to appear in courtevery two months. Because of Mireles, defendant lost $8,000 or$9,000 in 1995 and another $9,000 in 1996. Defendant had to payadditional court costs and attorney fees and make necessary repairsto his buildings. Defendant also was jailed for three weeks andsentenced to a week of home confinement. Martinez worked fordefendant, specializing in roofing and drywall. A few days beforeDecember 13, 1997, defendant was working on the roof of one of hisproperties with Martinez and Alvarez. While they were working onthe roof they discussed the problems Mireles had caused bothdefendant and Martinez. Defendant sold Martinez his building at8822 South Exchange Avenue. Defendant knew that Mireles reportedviolations against Martinez. Alvarez told defendant, "you know whoI am, you know what I can do. For two thousand dollars, I can takecare of Mireles for you." Defendant knew that Alvarez meant hewould kill Mireles if defendant paid him $2,000. Defendant agreedto pay Alvarez $2,000 to kill Mireles. Defendant told Martinezthat he would be out of town from December 26, 1997, until thefirst week of January.

In September or October 1997, Martinez showed defendant riflesin Martinez's apartment. Martinez told defendant that for $2,000,he would "take Mireles out" for him. Defendant told Martinez thathe would give him only $1,000 if Martinez killed Mireles. Defendant went to Texas on December 26, 1997, and returned toChicago on January 6, 1998.

On January 13, 1998, Martinez told Salinas that he "took careof Mireles." Defendant understood that Martinez killed Mireles. Martinez demanded $2,000 from defendant, rubbing his thumb over hisfingers when asking for the money. Defendant told Martinez that hewould give him $1,000. Martinez said that he needed $2,000 becausehe had to "take care of someone else." Defendant told Martinezthat he was in the process of selling his building and would beable to pay him later. Defendant then gave Martinez $50 to work onhis truck. After defendant's confession was admitted intoevidence, the State rested.

Martha Grande testified for the defense that on December 29,1997, she lived at 8850 South Exchange Avenue. At 10:45 p.m.,Grande observed from her kitchen window a white, four-door car thatparked at the corner of 88th Street and Exchange Avenue. She alsosaw Mireles walking down the street. When Mireles saw the whitecar he stopped walking. Grande testified, "the young kid got outand stood in front of him. I don't know what he said to him. Andthen [Mireles] tried to take a step forward and then he went behindhim and that's when he shot him in the head and he fell." Grandethen saw the perpetrator run to the corner, where he stood andlooked at Mireles. The driver screamed at the shooter twice. Theshooter turned around to look at the driver and then ran back toMireles' body. It appeared the shooter was looking for somethingbecause he was moving things around. Grande did not see theshooter take anything. The shooter returned to the car. The tiressquealed as the men drove away toward Commercial Avenue.

Grande described the shooter as a short, thin "Puerto Ricantype." She stated the driver was fat and wore a black jacket,black hoodie and black gloves. Grande testified that she saw bothmen outside of Sema's house. She did not know their names. Grandeknew that the driver was Sema's husband. She recognized his voice. Grande testified that she told detectives the perpetratorswere "both dark complected and that there was one that was shortand he was Puerto Rican style." Grande denied that she tolddetectives that the men were African-American. She stated that shewas unsure of whether the shooter wore a red jacket because she was"feeling bad." Grande testified that in a lineup, she hadidentified two African-American men as the perpetrators. Grandedid not identify Martinez and Alvarez because she was afraid theywould kill her. Grande did not recognize a photograph of defendantand could not identify him in court. Grande, however, identifiedAlvarez and Martinez in photographs as the shooter and driver.

Defendant testified that from 1994 to 1998, he owned fourbuildings located at 8810, 8811 and 8756 South Houston Avenue and8822 South Exchange Avenue. He testified that he tried to fix thebuildings and hired men to help him work on the buildings. Defendant did not have enough money to fix the buildings and wasunable to obtain a loan. Defendant lost money on the buildingsbecause he was fined in housing court. Defendant stated that hepaid all fines, which totaled $9,000. Defendant knew Mireles fromhousing court.

Defendant testified that he sold the building located at 8822South Exchange Avenue to Martinez. When Martinez worked to fixdefendant's buildings, he brought "helpers," but defendant did notknow any of the helpers' names. Defendant identified both Martinezand Alvarez in photographs. Defendant stated that he never had aconversation with Alvarez.

In September or October 1997, defendant met with Martinez todiscuss how to fix the windows and roofs of the buildings that theyowned. Defendant denied that he spoke to either Martinez orAlvarez about killing Mireles. Defendant never heard Martinezcomplain about Mireles.

On January 15, 1998, defendant was at his place of employmentwhen police officers arrested him. Defendant testified that thepolice detectives who interviewed him did not advise him of hisMiranda rights and did not provide him with a waiver form. Defendant asked the detectives if he could make a telephone call,but his request was denied. Defendant stated that Detective Bakerhit him in the head three or four times and threatened him. Thedetectives did not tell defendant that they were investigatingMireles' death. In a second interview, defendant requested alawyer, but the detectives refused. Again, defendant was notadvised of his Miranda rights and was not allowed to make atelephone call.

Defendant denied that he confessed his involvement in Mireles'murder to ASAs Milan and Mahoney. Milan did not take a statementfrom defendant. Instead, Milan already had written the statementand showed it to defendant. Milan did not read the statement todefendant and defendant did not read the statement himself. Milantold defendant that he wanted to help him and that he only wanteddefendant to be a witness. Milan told defendant, "[y]ou sign thepapers, you go home." Defendant signed every page of the papersthat Milan gave him. Defendant stated that Milan made correctionsand that defendant initialed them. Defendant denied that he hiredsomeone to kill Mireles.

The parties stipulated that Grande told Detective Ramirez thatshe saw two black men on the night of December 29, 1997, and thatthe shooter had wavy hair which was combed back. Grande also toldRamirez that she saw a third black man sitting in the white car. On January 1, 1998, Grande viewed a lineup after which she tolddetectives that she saw the man in the middle of the lineup in herneighborhood before the night of the homicide. She also tolddetectives that she had seen the two men she identified in thelineup in the neighborhood before the homicide.

Jeanette Salinas, defendant's daughter, testified thatdefendant was "always having money problems" and did not haveenough money to fix his buildings. Salinas also testified thatdefendant was in Texas during the New Year's holiday of 1998.

Detective Baker testified in rebuttal that he never hitdefendant in the head. He stated that his only interview withdefendant lasted 15 to 20 minutes and that he had no furtherconversations with him.

ASA Milan testified in rebuttal that he never told defendantthat he would only be a witness in this case. Milan denied that hewrote out defendant's statement before speaking to him. Milanstated that he did not tell defendant that if he signed thestatement, he could go home. Milan testified he read the statementaloud to defendant, word for word, and that defendant took his timeand carefully read the entire statement himself.

Following closing argument, the jury found defendant guilty oftwo counts of solicitation of murder for hire, but found defendantnot guilty of first-degree murder and not guilty of solicitation ofmurder. The circuit court sentenced defendant to concurrent termsof 40 years on each count. After defendant's motion to reconsiderwas denied, defendant timely appealed.

Defendant initially asserts that the offense of solicitationof murder for hire was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt becausethe State failed to offer any evidence to corroborate hisconfession that he procured codefendants Martinez and Alvarez tomurder Mireles. Defendant argues that the evidence presented showsonly that Martinez and Alvarez murdered Mireles. Defendantmaintains that, although he may have had a motive to harm Mireles,this motive provides no corroboration of his confession. Defendantcontends that the sole and total evidence showing that he solicitedMartinez and Alvarez to murder Mireles came from his confession. Consequently, defendant argues that the State failed to prove thecorpus delicti of the offense of solicitation of murder for hire.

The State responds that the evidence adduced at trialestablished both defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt andthe corpus delicti of the offense of solicitation of murder forhire. The State argues that defendant's motive to solicit willingparticipants to murder Mireles is established by independentevidence. The State contends that when all the evidence is viewedin the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juryclearly could have found the elements of the crime beyond areasonable doubt.

Defendant, citing People v. Edwards, 243 Ill. App. 3d 280, 611N.E.2d 1196 (1993), argues a de novo review is appropriate todetermine the issue of whether the State has corroborated hisconfession to the extent that the corpus delicti of the offense ofsolicitation of murder for hire was proved beyond a reasonabledoubt. The Edwards court, however, did not hold that a de novoreview is appropriate under these circumstances. Our supreme courthas held that, in all criminal cases, the reasonable doubt test asset forth in People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 478 N.E.2d 267(1985), should be applied in reviewing the sufficiency of evidence. People v. Pintos, 133 Ill. 2d 286, 291, 549 N.E.2d 344 (1989).

In Collins, the supreme court held that a conviction will notbe set aside unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactorythat it creates a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt.Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261; see also People v. Stiles, 334 Ill.App. 3d 953, 956, 779 N.E.2d 397 (2002). The relevant inquiry onreview is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could havefound the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonabledoubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560,573, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261. Thetrier of fact has the power and duty to determine the credibilityof witnesses and the weight to give their testimony, resolveconflicts in the evidence and draw reasonable inferences from theevidence. People v. Ortiz, 196 Ill. 2d 236, 259, 752 N.E.2d 410(2001). It is not the function of this court to retry defendant orto substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact regardingwitness credibility or the weight of the evidence. Stiles, 334 Ill.App. 3d at 956.

The corpus delicti of an offense constitutes an essentialelement of a criminal prosecution, which consists of two elements:(1) that a certain result occurred; and (2) that some person iscriminally responsible for the act. People v. O'Neil, 18 Ill. 2d461, 463, 165 N.E.2d 319 (1960); People v. Lueder, 3 Ill. 2d 487,489, 121 N.E.2d 743 (1954). A person may not be convicted upon hisconfession alone; the State must prove the corpus delicti byindependent evidence. People v. Lambert, 104 Ill. 2d 375, 378, 472N.E.2d 427 (1984); People v. Perfecto, 26 Ill. 2d 228, 229, 186N.E.2d 258 (1962). " 'It is enough if the other evidence eithertends to show that a crime did in fact occur [citation] or tocorroborate the confession.' " People v. Holmes, 67 Ill. 2d 236,240, 367 N.E.2d 663 (1977), quoting People v. Norcutt, 44 Ill. 2d256, 263 (1970).

Further, in People v. Furby, 138 Ill. 2d 434, 446, 563 N.E.2d421 (1990), our supreme court explained the concept of proof ofguilt for a criminal offense as follows: "By common acceptation,the first two components--the occurrence of the injury or loss, andits causation by criminal conduct--are termed the corpus delicti;the identity of the accused as the offender, the ultimate issue, isnot considered part of the corpus delicti." See also 7 J. Wigmore,Evidence