People v. Alduino

Citations: 260 Ill. App. 3d 665; 198 Ill. Dec. 644; 1994 Ill. App. LEXIS 563; 633 N.E.2d 106Docket: No. 2—92—1316

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; April 19, 1994; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Giovanni Alduino was convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced to 90 days in jail and 24 months’ probation. He appealed, arguing that he was denied a fair trial due to the State's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and insufficient proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the trial judgment. Key testimony during the trial included that of Antonella Pulice, who translated for Alduino after he was read his Miranda rights in Italian. Alduino recounted an incident that began with an argument while driving and mentioned going to a restaurant with a bat. The victim, Luciano Migliaccio, testified that after an argument with Alduino in a parking lot, Alduino, armed with a baseball bat, attacked him inside the restaurant, striking him multiple times on the head, resulting in a head injury requiring stitches. Emergency medical technician Curt Shires responded to the scene and observed Migliaccio injured. Witness Anthony Latronica identified Alduino as the assailant and noted that he fled the scene but was restrained by others. The bat used in the attack was described as an aluminum bat, less than full size.

Defendant was identified by Latronica as the individual who struck Migliaccio, although Latronica noted difficulty in distinguishing between defendant and his companion, stating that defendant was slightly larger and more talkative. During a traffic stop initiated by Officer Dean Costopoulos, blood was observed on the trunk of defendant's vehicle and on his hands, leading to defendant's arrest. Joseph Palazzolo, defendant's brother-in-law, testified that he was shown a photographic array following his own arrest but did not recognize anyone, including defendant. Additionally, Migliaccio viewed approximately 20 photographs but failed to identify anyone and did not recognize anyone during a subsequent police lineup. Defense counsel claimed a discovery violation due to a lack of notice regarding these identification procedures. A hearing revealed that Officer Costopoulos and Officer Baney had not conducted any lineups or displayed photographs to Migliaccio. Detective Robert Del Carlo conducted a photographic lineup that included Palazzolo but none of defendant, resulting in Palazzolo’s arrest based on identification by DiNunzio. Ultimately, neither DiNunzio nor Migliaccio were able to identify Palazzolo when viewed at the police station, leading to his release. The investigation confirmed that defendant was not shown to any witness for identification purposes apart from the initial encounter.

Frank Biniewicz, a detective, confirmed that the photographic array presented by Officer Del Carlo did not include a picture of the defendant, Palazzolo. Only witness DiNunzio identified Palazzolo in the array, while neither DiNunzio nor Migliaccio identified him in the lineup. The photographs from the array were destroyed after the case was dropped due to the lack of identification. Following a hearing on a discovery violation, the defendant sought a mistrial, which the trial court denied. The defendant argues that the trial court erred by not granting the mistrial because the State failed to disclose that two witnesses had seen a photographic array and a lineup without making an identification. This omission is claimed to be prejudicial and a violation of due process, as outlined in Brady v. Maryland, which states that suppression of evidence favorable to the accused violates due process if it is material to guilt or punishment.

The Brady rule primarily concerns post-trial evidence that should have been disclosed, but late disclosures during trial can also constitute a due process violation. The Supreme Court has determined that evidence is material if its disclosure could have changed the trial's outcome. The assessment of omitted evidence must consider the entire trial record. Under Supreme Court Rule 412(c), the State is required to disclose any evidence that could negate the accused's guilt upon defense counsel's written request. Sanctions for discovery violations can be imposed by the trial court, but declaring a mistrial is an extreme measure. A new trial requires that the omitted materials be materially significant in a constitutional sense. The trial court's discretion in determining the appropriate sanction is respected, with factors such as the closeness of evidence, strength of undisclosed evidence, and the potential for prior notice to assist the defendant in discrediting evidence being considered.

The court addressed a situation where the prosecution was ordered to disclose information under Supreme Court Rule 412(a), but claimed to have no evidence negating the defendant's guilt. An assessment of the evidence indicated that the omitted information was not constitutionally material. The defendant challenged the reliability of police testimony regarding photographic and physical lineups, arguing that the absence of police reports and the photographs shown to witnesses was exculpatory. However, the trial judge affirmed that if the photographic array included the defendant's image, the failure of witnesses to identify him would be significant. After reviewing the testimony, the trial court found police officers credible in stating that the defendant's image was not present in the array or lineup. The court emphasized that credibility determinations fall to the trier of fact. The defendant's reliance on the case of People v. Nichols was misplaced, as that case involved distinct circumstances concerning evidence suppression. The court concluded that the lack of identification of the defendant's companion did not undermine the identification of the defendant himself, as he was not part of the identification procedures. Thus, the omission of this information was not material, and the defendant was not entitled to a new trial.

Defendant's claim that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is rejected. The review standard for sufficiency of evidence requires evaluating it in the light favoring the prosecution, determining if a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant argues that the victim, Luciano Migliaccio, lacked sufficient opportunity to identify him. However, evidence shows that Migliaccio had an exchange with the defendant and was face-to-face with him at the time of the assault. Migliaccio's in-court identification of the defendant was clear and definitive. Anthony Latronica, another witness, acknowledged similarities between the defendant and his companion but distinctly identified the defendant as the man who used the bat, noting height differences and contrasting mannerisms. Although some of Latronica's testimony was disputed by police, this did not undermine his credible identification. Additional evidence, including blood on the defendant's hands after the incident and his post-arrest admission of having taken a bat to the restaurant, further supported the conviction. The judgment of the Du Page County circuit court is affirmed.