2021 IL App (1st) 180523-U SIXTH DIVISION September 3, 2021 No. 1-18-0523

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 16035 ) ANGELO CLARK, ) Honorable ) Nicholas Ford, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE CONNORS delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Harris concurred in the judgment. Presiding Justice Mikva concurred in part and dissented in part. ORDER ¶1 Held: Defendant’s convictions for aggravated battery based on discharge of a firearm are affirmed over his contentions that 1) his statement should be suppressed because he was arrested pursuant to an investigative alert; 2) the trial court erred because it violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012); and 3) the trial court denied him due process and a fair trial because it conveyed to the jury that it was biased against him by suggesting he had an improper motive during cross- examination and because it allowed lay witnesses to testify as to their opinion that he was a “lookout.” The trial court’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion. ¶2 Following a jury trial, defendant Angelo Clark was found guilty of two counts of aggravated battery based on discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2012)) under an accountability theory. The court sentenced defendant to 16 years in prison on each count, to be served consecutively. Defendant contends on appeal that: 1) his statement should be suppressed because he was arrested pursuant to an investigative alert, not an arrest warrant; 2) the trial court committed plain error because it failed to ask the jurors whether they accepted the principles set forth in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. Jul. ^[1], 2012); 3) the trial court denied him due process and a fair trial because it conveyed to the jury that it was biased against him by suggesting he had an improper motive during cross-examination; 4) the trial court denied him due process and a fair trial when it allowed lay witnesses to testify as to their opinion that he was a “lookout”; and 5) the trial court failed to consider the requisite sentencing factors when it sentenced defendant, who was 17 years old, to a total of 32 years in prison. We affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Defendant’s convictions arose from a shooting that took place near the area of 311 West 105th Street, in Chicago, during the evening of July 19, 2013, in which two victims, a 6-year-old girl and 52-year-old woman, were shot and injured. At trial, the State proceeded on three counts of aggravated battery and five counts of attempted first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2012) (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) (West 2012)) against defendant based on an accountability theory. Co- defendants, Terrence Lynom and Ladon Barker, were tried separately and are not parties to this appeal. ¶5 A. Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence

180524

¶6 Before trial, defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, contending that he was arrested without probable cause and a valid arrest warrant.

¶7 At the hearing on the motion, Lashan Clark, defendant’s mother, testified for defendant as follows. ^[1] On July 22, 2013, Lashan was at her mother’s house when two police officers arrived looking for defendant, who was living at Lashan’s sister’s house. Lashan voluntarily accompanied

the officers to her sister’s house. When they arrived, Lashan walked to the back of the house and told the officers to wait outside. Lashan walked through the back door and saw defendant sitting at the kitchen table. Lashan told defendant that the police were there “about a little girl” and it was serious. When Lashan and defendant were talking, the officers entered the house without permission. The officers then choked defendant, threw him against the wall, and threatened to taser him.

¶8 Chicago police officer Patrick Kinney 2 testified that on July 22, 2013, he and his partner, Chicago police officer Kevin O’Neill, learned that there was an investigative alert for defendant and that “there was probable cause attached to that investigative alert.” Kinney testified that there were two types of investigative alerts, one being with probable cause and one without probable cause. He testified that “according to my data warehouse search of the alert it said specifically probable cause to arrest.” He testified that the basis for probable cause for the investigative alert was that defendant had been “positively identified as being the shooter where two victims were shot.”

180525

¶9 After Kinney learned that there was an investigative alert with probable cause to arrest defendant, he performed a search on defendant’s name and went to the residence of the first address that appeared. At that residence, defendant’s mother, Lashan Clark, was “extremely” cooperative and informed them that defendant lived with her sister. Lashan accompanied the officers to her

sister’s house. When they arrived, Kinney went to the back of the residence, O’Neill went to the front, and Lashan waited in the police car. Kinney knocked on the back door. A man, who was about 20 or 25 years old, answered the door and Kinney told him that he was looking for defendant and had probable cause for his arrest. The man opened the door, moved to the side, and pointed to a back bedroom where Kinney saw defendant. Kinney, who was outside the residence, told defendant that he had a probable cause investigative alert for his arrest and asked him to come to the police station. Defendant said, “Okay, let me get some clothes,” after which Kinney entered the residence and defendant put on his clothes. Kinney did not have consent to go inside the house

and he entered the residence because he did not “know what [defendant] was going to grab” and “wanted to have eyes on prior to me arresting him.” The State then asked, “And was he cooperative and then came out with you?” Kinney testified, “Yes, very.” The State then asked Kinney, “Then

you placed him under arrest?” and he responded, “That’s correct.” Kinney then brought him to the police station. Kinney did not have an arrest warrant for defendant.

¶ 10 The trial court denied defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. In doing so, the court found that Kinney was “believable” and a “compelling” witness and that Lashan’s testimony was “utterly without any credibility.” The court stated that it agreed with defense counsel that “the existence of an investigative alert with probable cause to arrest does not offer an officer the ability to enter a home to effect an arrest on that point.” The court further stated that

180526

Kinney’s eventual entry occurred after defendant had “already agreed to accompany” the officers and it was not “to effect arrest but to effect and facilitate his accompaniment, which he already agreed to do.”

¶ 11 B. Motion to Suppress Statements

¶ 12 Defendant also filed a motion to suppress the statements he made after he was arrested. He argued that the court should suppress his statements because of his young age, he was never given

Miranda warnings, and his statements were obtained as a result of psychological and mental coercion.

¶ 13 Chicago police detective Matthew Weber testified that on July 19, 2013, he was assigned to investigate the shooting, which had occurred at 311 West 105th Street, in Chicago, with Chicago

police detectives Henry Barsch and Tom Lieber. On July 22, 2013, at about 5 p.m., Weber and Lieber met with defendant at the police station. When Weber initially entered the interview room, he introduced himself and explained why defendant was there. Defendant told Weber he did not

“know anything” and was not in any gangs. Weber did not give defendant Miranda rights at this

time and did not ask him any questions. Weber left the room “briefly” and then returned to the room, at which time he read defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant indicated he understood each of his rights and agreed to speak with Weber and Lieber, after which they spoke for about 30 or 40 minutes.

¶ 14 Weber left the interview room with defendant and then at about 1 a.m., he called Assistant

State’s Attorney (ASA) Patricia Melin. Thereafter, Weber and Melin spoke with defendant. Melin advised defendant of his rights and defendant indicated he understood his rights and agreed to speak. At some point during the conversation, when Melin and defendant were in the room without

180527

Weber, defendant agreed to give a handwritten statement. Thereafter, Weber, defendant, and Melin went to a larger interview room where defendant gave his statement and Melin typed it. When

defendant finished his statement, Weber, Melin, and defendant reviewed it, signed each page, and initialed any corrections. Defendant read a portion of his statement, which demonstrated to Weber that defendant was able to read and write English.

¶ 15 Weber testified that defendant was given a cheeseburger and a Snickers bar, and he did not want anything to drink. Defendant was allowed to use the bathroom and make a telephone call.

Defendant never asked for an attorney or to make any phone calls. Weber did not offer defendant anything in exchange for his statement and did not make any threats or promises to him. Weber did not tell defendant that if defendant did not help him, he was going to be charged with murder.

¶ 16 Defendant, who was 17 years old on July 22, 2013, testified that the “arresting officer” came into the back of his aunt’s house without consent or a search warrant. The officer then grabbed him and asked for his name. Defendant gave the officer his name, after which the officer told defendant that he was taking him to the station for questioning. Defendant told the officer that he did not want to go to the station. The officer then pulled out a taser, placed handcuffs on defendant, and took him to the police station where he was placed in a small room. About an hour later, defendant was taken into an interrogation room. Defendant testified that the detective who had previously testified at the hearing came into the room and asked defendant what happened.

Defendant told the detective that “I don’t know nothing about anything.” The detective left the room and about 30 to 35 minutes later, he returned with two other officers. Defendant told the officers that he did not “know nothing about nothing” and the officers continued to interrogate him. Defendant eventually gave a statement. The detective never read defendant his Miranda

180528 warnings and defendant was never told that he had a right to a lawyer or the right not to talk.

Defendant gave a statement because the detective told him that if he did not say he participated in the crime, he would be charged with first degree murder.

¶ 17 After defendant gave his statement to the detective, he met with an ASA in a different room. The ASA never told him that he had a right to an attorney or that he had a right not to talk to them. Defendant knew certain details that he provided in his statement because it was “the word around the neighborhood.” Asked why he told the police “what the word around the neighborhood was,” he testified that “they told me if I didn’t say I participated in this crime, I’d be charged with

first-degree murder” and “I only did what I was told.” Defendant testified that he signed the statement and read it because that “that’s what you have to do” and the detective told him that “if

I didn’t say I participate in this crime, I would be charged with first degree murder.” He never told the ASA that he did not want a lawyer or that he did not have a problem talking to them. He was not allowed to make a phone call to his mother or aunt.

¶ 18 On cross-examination, defendant acknowledged that his mother brought the police to the location where he was arrested. Defendant stated that he never asked for an attorney or to make a phone call. He acknowledged he signed a handwritten statement regarding the shooting, his signature was on pages one and three of the statement, and he initialed it three times. He acknowledged that he said in the statement that the police and ASA treated him okay, he was given a cheeseburger and Snickers bar, and he was allowed to use the bathroom. He acknowledged that after the ASA finished typing his statement, he demonstrated he could read by reading a portion of it out loud.

180529

¶ 19 Following argument, the court denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements. In doing so, the court found that defendant “freely admitted reading” the statement, which contained

Miranda warnings. The court stated that it was “readily apparent to me that these are his words and that these words were given to the police not as a result of duress or coercion of any kind, but a decision he made freely and voluntarily” after having been given his Miranda warnings.

¶ 20 C. Jury Trial

¶ 21 Juannakee Kennedy, the mother of the six-year-old victim Q.T., testified that on July 19, 2013, Q.T. attended a barbeque with her older daughter. At about 10 p.m. that night, she learned

that Q.T. had been shot in the back, the bullet went through her lung, and she was unconscious in the intensive care unit at the hospital. Q.T.’s right lobe of her lung had to be removed and she was in the hospital for about three weeks.

¶ 22 Lisa Travis testified that on July 19, 2013, at about 7:30 p.m., she was attending a memorial for her nephew, who had died five years earlier. The memorial was held at a residence located at

311 West 105th Place in Chicago, with mostly women and some children. At some point, she fell to the ground and could not feel her foot. Her niece said, “They shooting,” and everybody started running into the house. She did not hear shots and did not see anybody shooting. She tried to scoot herself into the gangway area to hide and it was “chaotic” for a few moments. After the bullets

stopped, her son carried her into the house. Travis was shot in the leg, which required therapy and caused her to miss six months of work.

180530

¶ 23 Ayanna Moore testified that on July 19, 2013, she was at 311 West 105th Street to attend the memorial with about 20 or 30 people. ^[3] At about 7 p.m., she left the memorial with her sister to get more cups. When Ayanna stopped her car at a nearby intersection on 105th Street, she saw an individual named Kevin Collins, whom she referred to as “Cool,” and he stopped to talk to her from the passenger’s side of her vehicle. Ayanna noticed a group of about 10 guys whom she had not seen before. At some point when she was talking to Cool, a guy with dreadlocks and a red t-

shirt, who was about five to seven feet from her, walked up and lifted his shirt so she could see the butt of a gun tucked into his waistband. Cool told the individual to “like go back” and he dropped his shirt and walked away. Ayanna continued driving to the store and called her cousin, Jarvis

Thomas, to find out if “they were having some conflict” because she was suspicious about Cool and the other individuals.

¶ 24 Ayanna testified that about 15 or 20 minutes later, she returned to the memorial. When she was on the porch, she looked down the street towards a dead end on the block and saw “three guys” come from an alley onto 105th Street. The three individuals were in red, black, and white t-shirts and she recognized all three of them from her encounter with Cool earlier that evening. The person in the red shirt was the same person whom she had previously seen with the gun, and she identified defendant in court as the individual who was in the white shirt. The individuals in the red and black shirts ran across the street and “started shooting” and “holding the guns out.” They were shooting towards the people in front of the residence at 311 West 105th place. In front of the house were about 15 to 20 people, most of whom were women and children.

180531

¶ 25 Ayanna testified that defendant did not have a gun and he “came out behind them,” “laid back,” and stood “off to the side.” She also testified that defendant was standing “a little off from them” in the alley and was “just standing there the whole time.” She stated that defendant “walked like right behind them and then he looked and walked back” to the alley right before the shooting started. After the shooting stopped, the individuals ran down the alley towards 106th Street. At some point during the shooting, Ayanna saw Q.T. get hit while she was riding her bike, after which

Q.T. ran towards the porch and collapsed in Ayanna’s lap. Ayanna tried to stop the bleeding and stayed with Q.T. until the ambulance arrived.

¶ 26 Ayanna identified one of the shooters from a photo array that the detectives had showed

her at the police station after the shooting. She testified that on July 21, 2012, when she was at the hospital with Q.T., she identified from a photo array the shooters in red and black shirts, as well

as the person who was “just a lookout.” The State then asked Ayanna, “So when you say the lookout, are you referring to the person—well, who is the person that you identified as a lookout?”

Defense counsel objected to the word “lookout,” and the court sustained the objection. Ayanna then testified that the person whom she had just identified was defendant and he was the person who had been standing by the alley.

¶ 27 Ayanna testified that on July 22, 2013, at a line-up at a police station she identified the shooter, who was wearing a red shirt, and defendant, who she described as “being a lookout.”. The court overruled defendant’s objection. Ayanna then testified that after she viewed the lineup, she went back to the detective and told him that the person she had previously identified in the “first array” “wasn’t the one that was the lookout.” Defense counsel objected to the word “lookout,” after which the court admonished the jury as follows:

- 10 - “THE COURT: Okay. Folks, I’m going to take a minute and pause on the word lookout. Whether or not the defendant was a lookout in this case, that’s going to be your decision and your decision alone to make. This witness is testifying on her own impressions of what was going on out there. That’s something you can consider but the decision of guilt or innocence of the defendant rests solely within you and it’s based on your observations of the witnesses. Does everybody understand that?” The jury responded affirmatively, and the court stated it was “going to sustain the objection, as to the use of the word lookout.” ¶ 28 Ayanna testified that on July 23, 2013, she viewed another lineup at the police station, where she identified the shooter who had the “blond patch” in his hair and the person who was wearing the red shirt. Ayanna identified a photograph of the porch where she was standing on the night of the shooting, and she placed a mark where defendant and the two shooters were standing. ¶ 29 On cross-examination, Ayanna acknowledged that after the shooting, she told the detectives that the person who showed her the firearm was wearing a black shirt, but at trial, she testified that he was wearing a red shirt. She testified that when she spoke with the detectives after the shooting, she “might have said a lot” because “it happened so fast” and it was “kind of chaotic.” There were about 7 to 10 return shots fired at the shooters. ¶ 30 Shushana Moore testified that on June 19, 2013, she was at the memorial and at about 7 p.m. she went to her aunt’s house, which was located on the same street. When she was standing in front of her aunt’s house, she saw Ayanna in her car at the intersection at 105th and Wentworth, which was about 50 feet away from her. Ayanna was talking to “Cool” and there were other young guys with him. During the conversation, a young man who was wearing a red shirt and had - 11 - dreadlocks turned towards Cool, lifted up his shirt, and pointed to a gun in his waistband, which was poking out. Cool shook his head “no.” About 30 or 45 minutes later, Shushana went to the store with her aunt. On her way there, she turned into an alley on 105th Street and saw about 7 to 10 guys in a nearby field, one of whom she had previously seen wearing the red shirt with the gun. She also saw a person in a black shirt who had a “patch of hair that was dyed blond” and a person in a white shirt, whom she identified in court as defendant. Shushana’s aunt called her mother to warn her that the group of guys “looked suspicious.” Shushana then heard about 10 gunshots. She drove back to the memorial and saw a child, whom she later learned was Q.T., crawling up the stairs to the house. ¶ 31 Shushana further testified that on July 22, 2013, she viewed a line up at the police station and identified defendant as the person with the white shirt in the field who “was standing out there with them.” She also identified the person with the red shirt and the gun in his pants. On July 23, 2013, she viewed another line up at the police station and identified the individual with the “gold hair patch” whom she saw in the field. ¶ 32 Jarvis Thomas testified that he was currently living in Nevada, where he had a pending armed robbery case, and further stated as follows. On July 19, 2013, at 7:30 p.m., he was at the memorial and noticed “two guys walking out the alley” from the south side of the street. One of the men was wearing a red shirt and the other was wearing a black shirt. A third man, whom he identified in court as defendant, was in a white shirt and kneeling down by the gate on the south side of the street. He testified that when the men in the red and black shirts crossed the street, defendant “[j]ust stand there and look and observe.” After the two men crossed the street, “gunshots started ringing out” and the men in the red and black shirts were shooting towards the - 12 - crowd of people on the north side of the street. There were about 12 or 13 gunshots, and someone shot back at the men who were shooting. Defendant never crossed the street and was “[s]till standing there” and “kneeling down” the entire time and only stood up when the shooters left. After the shooting stopped, the men crossed the street and went back to the alley. Defendant waited for them and then he “stood up, and they all took off in the same direction.” ¶ 33 At one point during Thomas’s testimony, he was asked what defendant was doing when the men in the red and black shirts were shooting. Thomas testified that defendant was “[k]neeling by the gate,” after which the following colloquy occurred: “MR. NOLAN [(ASSIATANT STATE’S ATTORNEY)]: Okay. And what did he appear to be doing while the people were shooting? Just kneeling? MS. PATZKE [(DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: Objection— THE WITNESS: Observing— MS. PATZKE:—asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Observing the surroundings— THE COURT: Overruled. MS. PATZKE: Objection. THE WITNESS:— and the shooters’ lookout. THE COURT: Overruled.” ¶ 34 The court then told the jury: “As I’ve already explained, folks, the role of the parties is for you to determine based on your observations of the witnesses.” The State asked Thomas what led him to the opinion that defendant was “observing.” Thomas testified that he “was looking around” towards the people on the block and not towards the shooters and his eyes were focused primarily - 13 - on the block. On re-cross, Jarvis testified that defendant was just looking towards the party and not looking back the other way towards the alley. He also testified that defendant was not looking at the shooters and agreed that he “wasn’t looking around, he was looking in one place.” The State showed Thomas a photograph of the street where the shooting took place and he described where he was standing when the gunshots started. On July 21, 2013, he identified defendant in a photo array as well as the two shooters. On July 22, 2013, he identified defendant and one of the shooters in a line up and the next day he identified the other shooter in a lineup. ¶ 35 Cragg Hardaway testified he did not remember where he was at 7 p.m. on the night of the shooting. However, he did remember that at some point that evening, he was with his cousin, Isaiah Hicks, at his grandmother’s house at 105th and Edbrooke. He eventually left his grandmother’s house with Hicks and drove towards Michigan Avenue. At around 105th and Lafayette, DeAndre Butler got into the car and Hardaway drove around the neighborhood for a little bit. The police stopped him near 105th and State Street. He did not remember if someone had jumped out of the car before the police stopped him. The officers took the occupants’ names and let them go, whereupon Hardaway drove back to his grandmother’s house with Hicks and Butler. ¶ 36 When he was asked whether it was “true that you heard multiple gunshots when you walked out of grandma’s house,” Hardaway stated he could not remember, after which defense counsel objected based on a leading question. The court then stated it was granting the State leave to treat him as a hostile witness based on his “repeated and very pointed indications of not recollecting.” Hardaway then testified that right after he picked up Butler in his car, he picked up Barker, Lynom, and defendant. - 14 - ¶ 37 Hardaway further stated that on July 21, 2013, he met with two detectives at the police station and his conversation was recorded. He had a pending armed robbery case at the time. A few weeks before Hardaway testified at trial, he watched the video recording of his interview. Hardaway testified that the detectives tried “to put me in something” and told him he was going to prison for 25 years for something he did not do. ¶ 38 Hardaway did not remember certain statements he made during the interview. Hardaway did not remember telling the detectives that at about 7:40 p.m. on the night of the shooting, he walked to the gate of his grandmother’s house and heard multiple gunshots “up towards the hill,” that Lynom, whom he knew as “Little Lord,” was wearing a red shirt and that defendant was wearing a gray shirt when they got in his car that night. He remembered telling the police that defendant had exited his vehicle at 105th and Lafayette, Barker had exited the vehicle around 106th and Wabash, and Lynom jumped out of his car right before the police pulled him over. He did not remember telling the detectives that defendant had said to Lynom, “I saw you shoot someone” and “I know someone’s dead.” He did not recall whether he told the police that when he returned to his grandmother’s house, he got out of the car with Butler and Hicks and walked back up the hill, where he ran into defendant, who had changed clothes. He did not recall whether he told the police that he heard defendant tell Butler that he had thrown the guns by a field near the train tracks. Hardaway testified that at the end of the recorded interview, he stated that he was treated well by the police and he gave the interview freely and voluntarily. ¶ 39 After Hardaway stated that he did not remember the questions or answers from his grand jury testimony, Hardaway stated that when he gave his statement to the police and testified at the grand jury proceeding, he “told them what they wanted to hear.” - 15 - ¶ 40 John Dillon, who was an ASA in July 2013, testified that he met with Hardaway before he testified at the grand jury proceeding and he asked Hardaway questions at the proceeding. The State read portions of the State’s questions and Hardaway’s answers from the grand jury proceeding and Dillon answered affirmatively that the portions the State read were the State’s questions and Hardaway’s answers from that proceeding. We summarize that testimony as follows. When Hardaway stepped outside his grandmother’s house, he heard about 12 gunshots coming from “up the hill.” Hicks, who was sitting in the car, did not hear the gunshots because his music was loud. Defendant said to Lynom, “I saw you shoot someone.” While Hardaway was driving, Lynom told him to stop the car and then Lynom got out of the car and jogged though a gangway, after which a police car pulled over Hardaway. The officers asked for their names and questioned why the guy with the red shirt, which was Lynom, had exited. Thereafter, a second police car pulled over Hardaway and let the men go after taking their names and searching the car. When Hardaway returned to his grandmother’s house, he walked up the hill on 105th Street towards Michigan Avenue with Hicks and Butler. They ran into defendant, who had changed his clothes, and defendant told Butler that he threw the guns “back by the train tracks” near a field on 106th Street. The police and ASA treated Hardaway well and did not threaten him. Hardaway gave the videotaped statement freely and voluntarily. ¶ 41 Chicago police detective Henry Barsch testified that at the police station on July 20, 2013, Hardaway agreed to have his statement recorded. In his statement, Hardaway identified a photograph of Hicks as the person sitting in the car when the gunshots went off, Lynom as the person he picked up in the area of the shooting, and Barker as one of the people who fled the area of the shooting. Hardaway identified a photograph of defendant as the person “who was also part - 16 - of the shooters.” Barsch never told Hardaway that he would receive 25 years in prison if Hardaway did not tell him what he wanted to hear. After Barsch’s conversation with Hardaway, the detectives issued investigate alerts for defendant, Lynom, and Barker, after which defendant was arrested on July 22, 2013. The court allowed the State to publish certain portions of Hardaway’s statement. ¶ 42 Assistant state’s attorney Patricia Melin testified that on July 23, 2013, she and Weber met with defendant at the police station. She explained her role and advised defendant of his Miranda warnings. Defendant indicated he understood each of his rights and agreed to speak to her. The initial conversation lasted between 30 and 45 minutes and defendant told Melin he had been treated fine by the police. Defendant agreed to give a typed written statement, so Melin, Weber, and defendant went to another room with a computer. When Melin finished typing defendant’s statement, she reviewed it line by line with defendant and Weber. Defendant read a portion of the statement out loud to demonstrate that he understood and could read and write English. Defendant, Melin, and Weber signed each page of the statement and defendant was allowed to make corrections. The court admitted defendant’s statement into evidence and the State published it. ¶ 43 Melin read defendant’s statement to the jury, which we summarize as follows. He was advised of his Miranda rights, understood each of his rights, and agreed to make a statement. He was 17 years old and was a member of “Goon Town,” which was a mix of people from different gangs. Goon Town was fighting with the “10-4 L.” On July 19, 2013, defendant was with “some other Goontowns,” including Lynom, Barker, Butler, Kevin Collins, whom he called “Cool,” and a person named Maris Oliver. They saw a group of 10-4 Ls down the block “so they decided to go around to the other end of the block and shoot back at the people” who were having a gathering with about 30 people in front of a house. Defendant stated that Barker and Lynom “volunteered to - 17 - shoot” and that he and Oliver said they would “go with to make sure [Barker] and [Lynom] were ok.” Defendant, Oliver, Lynom, and Butler, who brought guns to the scene, walked by the train tracks through an alley to the other end of the block at 105th and Wentworth. Oliver stayed close to the alley and defendant, Barker, and Lynom walked to the corner of the alley. Defendant stayed at the corner of the alley and Barker and Lynom crossed the street and started shooting at the group in front of the house. While they were shooting, defendant “stayed at the edge of the alley to make sure they were ok.” Defendant stated that Barker “was holding his gun in both hands when he fired, it looked like he knew what he was doing, but [Lynom] was firing with one hand up, and his hand was moving around like the gun was too big to be fired like that.” After Barker and Lynom “shot down the block,” defendant saw that “someone from down the block fired two times back towards them, but he saw the bullets ricochet on the ground in front of them.” Barker and Lynom ran back to defendant and then “they all ran back the same way to 106th, and there Maris took both guns.” Defendant, Lynom, and Barker kept running until they got into a car with Hardaway, Hicks, and Butler. At 105th and Lafayette, defendant got out and went to his grandmother’s house. Defendant changed his clothes because “he knew that a person on the porch at 105th and Wentworth had seen him.” Defendant walked somewhere with his cousin, and saw Butler, Hardaway, Hicks, and Lynom there. Some people were telling Lynom that “he had shot a kid” and someone punched Lynom because he “shot a little girl.” Defendant stated that he “decided that he was going to get the 9-millimeter gun back” and bring it back to where it was usually kept. Defendant “did go get the gun, but not on that day.” Defendant stated that he had been treated well by the police and had been given a cheeseburger and Snickers bar and was allowed to use the bathroom. Defendant stated that he gave his statement freely and voluntarily and he demonstrated his ability to read and write in English by reading part of his statement out loud. - 18 - ¶ 44 Chicago police sergeant Kevin Norris, an evidence technician, testified that he found several fired cartridge cases of two different calibers on the street, sidewalk, and parkway near the shooting. He concluded that there were at least two guns that were fired. Two semi-automatic firearms were recovered from the roof of a nearby garage. Caryn Tucker, who was an expert in firearms identification, testified that the firearms inventoried included two 9-milimeter guns, one Ruger, and one Browning. Three of the cartridge casings that she examined were recovered from the street and were fired from the Browning firearm. Nine other cartridge casings she examined were fired from the same unknown firearm and seven cartridge cases were identified as being fired from the same unknown .40-caliber Smith and Wesson firearm. She did not identify any cartridge casings that were fired by the recovered Ruger firearm. ¶ 45 Lashan Clark, defendant’s mother, testified for the defense. Lashan’s testimony was similar to her testimony at the hearing on defendant’s motion to quash and arrest and suppress evidence. She testified that on July 22, 2013, she was at her mother’s house when two police officers came looking for defendant. The officers allowed Lashan to ride with them to her sister’s house to find him. Lashan entered the back of her sister’s house and the police officer initially stayed on the porch. Lashan spoke with defendant, who saw the officer and became upset. Lashan tried to calm defendant down. The officer entered the house and told defendant they were not going to wait for him to get dressed. Defendant told the officer he was not going, after which the officer grabbed defendant, told him he was going to taser him, and dragged him out of the house. ¶ 46 Defendant, who was 17 years old on the night of the shooting, testified that on July 22, 2013, he was in the back bedroom of his aunt’s house when his mother walked in and closed the door behind her. A police officer was on the back porch and there were police officers in the front - 19 - and back of the house. After he talked to his mother, one of the officers walked into the house and asked defendant to come to the police station. After defendant refused, the officer grabbed defendant by the wrist, forcefully pulled him up, slammed him into the door, and put a taser in the back of his neck and threatened to tase him. Defendant testified he complied with the arrest and the officers took him to a police station. ¶ 47 At the police station, defendant, who was in handcuffs, was taken to a small room. About 45 minutes later, Detective Weber came in and told him that Hardaway placed him at the scene of the crime. Weber never told defendant that he did not have to talk or that he had the right to a lawyer. Defendant told Weber that he did not want to talk to him, he did not know what he was talking about, and he did not “know anything about nothing.” Weber started yelling and screaming at him and left the room. Thirty minutes later, Weber told defendant that if he did not say he had anything to do with the crime then he would “be going down for first degree murder.” Defendant decided to talk to Weber because he “was scared out of his f*** mind.” ¶ 48 Defense counsel asked defendant about the statement that the ASA had read and how defendant knew about the specific things included in the statement. Defendant responded that his grandmother lived around the area of the shooting, and everyone knew what had happened because “word get around fast where I’m from.” Asked why he told the detectives that he was involved in the shooting, defendant testified that the detective told him “if I didn’t say that I was there, I was going to be charged with first degree murder” and the detective told him he could go home after he gave the statement. ¶ 49 On cross-examination, defendant testified that Goon Town was “a bunch of guys that *** grew up with each other.” Lynom, who defendant had known for about a year before the shooting, - 20 - was involved in Goon Town with defendant. Defendant knew Barker from “around the neighborhood” and had also known him for about a year before the shooting. He testified that Goon Town was not a street gang. Asked whether he had told the ASA and the detectives that Goon Town and the 10-4 Ls had been fighting, he testified that his statement was dictated by the ASA and Weber, after which the following colloquy occurred: “Q. Well, didn’t you tell the Assistant State’s Attorney and the detectives that they had never gotten along, that they had been fighting since before you were even involved? A. You know as well as I know that that statement was dictated by Detective Weber and the State’s Attorney. Q. I don’t know that. And we’ll go through that. A. Yes, you do. THE COURT: Listen. I’m going to warn you once. All right? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You hear me? THE DEFENDANT: I understand you, Judge Ford. Yes. THE COURT: I’m treating you with all the respect I can muster. You’re going to listen to the questions—sir, can you pause for a minute. You’re going to listen to the questions and answer the ones posed. You can’t interject anything into them. Okay. Just listen and answer the questions— THE DEFENDANT: I understand that.” ¶ 50 The State then asked defendant about the night of July 19, 2013. Defendant testified that at about 6 p.m., he was playing Xbox at his grandmother’s house. At around 8:15 or 8:30 p.m., he - 21 - went outside and saw a group of people hanging out. He did not hear gunshots. At some point that evening, defendant saw Hardaway and Hicks when they pulled up their car at 104th and Wabash. The State showed defendant his statement and he acknowledged that his signature was on page one. He testified that he gave his statement “not voluntarily.” Defendant testified about the statement and court sustained several of the State’s objections based on defendant being nonresponsive. ¶ 51 Defendant acknowledged that his statement indicated that in July 2013, he moved back to Chicago after he was expelled from a high school in Wisconsin. He acknowledged he told the ASA that Lynom and Barker volunteered to shoot at the memorial and that he “went over there to make sure that they were okay.” He acknowledged stating that he stayed close to the alley at 105th Street while Barker and Lynom went across the street and started shooting and that he said he was “there to make sure that your guys were okay.” During a series of questions with defendant about whether Weber had told defendant to state that Barker had a gun in both hands, the following colloquy occurred: “Q. Did Detective Weber tell you to say that [Barker] had the gun in both hands? A. Detective Weber told me that. Q. Did Detective Weber— A. You’re trying to confuse me. You’re not going to get—you know as I know that this statement is involuntary. MS. KREMIN [(ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY)]: Objection. Nonresponsive. THE COURT: Folks, we’re going to go over something right now. All of that that he just said, That’s not evidence. There was no question pending. It’s an effort by the defendant - 22 - to do, I don’t know what. But it’s not responsive to the question and he can’t do it and you can’t consider it. Does everybody understand that? THE JURORS: Yes. THE COURT: Do you understand that when a question is asked of you, it’s your duty just to answer it, my friend? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: The just blurting things out, that’s not allowed in a court of law. Do you understand that? Yes or no? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do, Judge Ford.” ¶ 52 Defense counsel then requested a side bar and, outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel moved for a mistrial “based upon what you said about what the defendant—you don’t know what he’s trying to do, but he’s trying to do it, for the record.” The court stated that defendant had been “consistently failing to answer questions as posed” and it had been “fairly patient with him, asking him to just respond to the questions as posed.” The court stated it would make a clarification for the jury, after which the court admonished the jury as follows: “The defense has pointed out, and I agree, that as I’ve been talking to [defendant] about what’s been going on out here, I indicated that there was a certain—he said, I think, a couple sentences that were really not in response to any question. I want you to understand, he can—that you just can’t consider that in any way. I have no knowledge of what—completely what he said because it was nonresponsive, but you can’t consider it unless it’s a response to a question. Does everybody understand that?” The jurors responded, “Yes,” and then the court stated: - 23 - “That’s the long and the short of it. He gets to say whatever he wants. He can be reexamined by his own attorneys if they choose, and they’re not required to choose to do so. And the State is also allowed to ask questions that they may ask. That’s within their job title also. And that’s the purpose of this. But what any witness, and this applies to any of the witnesses that have testified during the course of the trial, has a duty to do is answer the question when posed. That’s one of the rules that we’ve got here. Does everybody understand that?” The jury responded “Yes,” after which the court asked the jury: “And do you all promise not to consider any remarks that I made as it relates to [defendant’s] remarks in any way in reaching whatever verdict you reach?” The jury responded, “Yes.” ¶ 53 The State then continued its cross-examination. Defendant testified that Weber told him to say that Lynom and Barker volunteered to shoot. At one point during the questioning regarding what Weber had told him to say, the court sustained defense counsel’s objection based on a question being asked and answered, after which defendant attempted to answer the question. The court stated that the objection was sustained and there was no question pending and then told defendant, “Have a seat, my friend. *** For the record, [defendant] stood up, faced the deputy sheriff and became obstreperous. Don’t consider any of that either. Everybody understand that?” The jurors responded, “Yes.” The court told defendant that the State would continue asking him questions and defendant responded, “Judge Ford, I don’t have nothing to say. I don’t.” The court told defendant that they would continue, and defendant responded again that “I don’t—I have nothing to say. I have nothing to say.” - 24 - ¶ 54 The court explained to the jury that defendant testified on direct examination, which exposed him to cross-examination. Thereafter, asked whether Weber had told him to state that he stayed at the edge of the alley to make sure Lynom and Barker were okay, he responded: “I don’t have anything to say.” The court sustained the State’s objection based on being nonresponsive. Defendant then stated: “You’re going to say the same thing. I’m going to give you the same reply every time. I don’t have anything to say. It’s over with. They made their minds up already.” The court told the jurors: “Folks, I’m certain that none of you have made your minds up already; is that correct?” The jurors responded, “Yes.” The court then explained to the jurors that the court “will rule on the objections” and “[i]t’s your duty as a juror that we swore an oath originally that you may not consider the guilt or innocence of the defendant until after you’ve heard the arguments of the attorneys.” ¶ 55 The State asked defendant about whether Weber had told him to say certain statements during his interview with the ASA and defendant responded, “I don’t have anything to say.” Asked whether he told Weber that someone from down the block had fired back towards them two times, defendant responded, “I don’t have anything to say.” The State objected again based on being nonresponsive, after which the court stated: “Folks, I just want to make one clarification. That objection is sustained. When the defendant chose to testify, which he did, he testified through an entire direct and answered the questions posed by his attorney, he waives his Fifth Amendment right against self- prosecution—against self-incrimination. Do you understand that? And it is appropriate and allowable for the State to cross-examine him once he’s waived his right against self- incrimination. Does everybody understand that?” - 25 - The jurors responded, “Yes.” ¶ 56 Shortly thereafter, outside the presence of the jury, the court told defendant that he could hold him in contempt for failing to answer the questions and if he continued to refuse to answer questions during cross-exanimation, the court could strike his testimony and instruct the jury not to consider anything he said. Defense counsel moved for a second mistrial based on one juror having raised his hand during the court’s admonishments. The court questioned the juror, who indicated he could be fair and had not made up his mind, and the court denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial. ¶ 57 Thereafter, the State continued its cross-examination regarding defendant’s statement. Defendant testified that his “whole statement is made up.” On re-direct, defendant testified that he made up the statement because he wanted to go home. ¶ 58 Defense counsel entered stipulations between the parties that in the grand jury proceedings, Shushana had testified that the gunshots “were coming from the memorial” and that Ayanna had testified that the individual who pulled up his shirt and showed the gun when she was talking to “Cool” was about 20 feet away from her. ¶ 59 In the State’s rebuttal, the State called Detective Kinney. ^[4] Kinney testified that on July 22, 2013, he and his partner, Officer O’Neill, learned that there was an investigative alert for defendant. He went to the last known address listed in the Chicago Police Department database. Defendant’s mother answered the door and told him that defendant was most likely at her sister’s