2021 IL App (1st) 182042-U FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION November 22, 2021 No. 1-18-2042 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). _____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT _____________________________________________________________________________ ) Appeal from the THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County, Illinois. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) v. ) No. 17 CR 16867 ) ISAAC SHARP, ) Honorable ) Timothy Joseph Joyce, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding _____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE COGHLAN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Hyman and Justice Walker concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting witness’ prior consistent statement where the witness’ motive to lie arose after the statement was made. ¶2 Defendant Isaac Sharp was convicted of three counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2016)) and sentenced to concurrent sentences of 5 years’ imprisonment on each count. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a witness’s prior consistent statement. We affirm. No. 1-18-2042 ¶3 BACKGROUND ¶4 On November 1, 2017, defendant was a passenger in Lyft car that was pulled over for a traffic violation. The police recovered three guns and ammunition in the car. Defendant was charged with multiple counts of UPWF, including unlawful possession of ammunition. ¶5 Prior to trial, the court was advised that the State’s witness, Ahmed Chafai, had inquired about a U Visa 1 and the State “provided him with some information regarding that.” The court denied the State’s request to “exclude anything” about Chafai inquiring about a U Visa, finding that Chafai’s “belief or his hope that it would help him” indicated “potential bias on his part.” The court also ruled that if the defense inquired about the U Visa, the State could go into Chafai’s “prior consistent statement indicating that he said whatever he said way back when before any motive regarding immigration” arose. The court also did not believe “that would have been a realistic motive on his part to anticipate that the police could help him with immigration problems.” ¶6 At trial, Chafai testified that around 9:00 p.m. on November 1, 2017, he was working as a Lyft driver near the 1400 block of 69th Street when he received a notification to pick up an individual “around that area.” He picked up a woman and two men and identified defendant as one of the men. They told him that the address in the “computer” “was the wrong destination and [he] should drive them four blocks down to another destination.” When they arrived, defendant and the man “went into [a] house [for] a couple minutes” and returned to the car with two bags. 1 U Visas “allow the victims of certain statutorily designated crimes *** who have been or are likely to be helpful to authorities in investigating or prosecuting that crime, to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals