People v. Colon
2018 IL App (1st) 160120, 117 N.E.3d 278, 426 Ill. Dec. 861 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an incriminating statement is made in a defendant's presence and hearing, and the defendant fails to deny, contradict, or object to it under circumstances where a denial would be the natural reaction of an innocent person, the defendant's silence is considered a tacit admission, and both the statement and the silence are admissible as non-hearsay evidence of the defendant's acquiescence to its truth.
Facts:
- On May 29, 2010, Pablo Colon was part of a group of gang members who confronted Alan Oliva because Oliva was wearing a red shirt, the color of a rival gang.
- Colon admitted he was the first person to approach Oliva and demand to know his gang affiliation.
- The group, including Colon, proceeded to beat Oliva to death.
- In his confession to police, Colon admitted to kicking Oliva in the head after he was already on the ground.
- On August 21, 2010, Colon attended a gang meeting with five other members, including Marco Ramirez and Daniel Guerrero.
- During this meeting, Ramirez described the murder, stating that he, Guerrero, and Colon had exited a vehicle together to approach the victim.
- Ramirez stated that 'they just kept beating the guy until he stopped moving,' and Colon remained silent throughout these incriminating statements.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Pablo Colon with first degree murder in an Illinois trial court.
- Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine to allow the testimony of Wayne Kates regarding statements made by other gang members in Colon's presence, arguing they were tacit admissions.
- The trial court granted the State's motion, ruling the statements were admissible as an 'admission by silence.'
- Following a jury trial, Colon was convicted of first degree murder.
- The trial court sentenced Colon to 40 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
- Colon, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's silence during a gang meeting, where fellow members make incriminating statements implicating him in a murder, constitute a tacit admission of guilt, making those statements admissible as non-hearsay evidence under Illinois Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gordon
Yes. A defendant's silence during a gang meeting where fellow members make incriminating statements can constitute a tacit admission of guilt. To be admissible under the tacit admission rule, the State must show that (1) the statement was incriminating such that an innocent person's natural reaction would be to deny it, (2) the defendant heard the statement, and (3) the defendant had an opportunity to reply but remained silent. Here, all three elements were met. Ramirez's statement that 'they' beat the victim implicated Colon, and an innocent person in a gang meeting with leadership would be expected to deny involvement in an act that brought intense police scrutiny. The meeting was in a small living room with only six people a few feet apart, ensuring Colon heard the statements. Finally, there was no evidence Colon was prevented from speaking, yet he remained silent. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the statements as a tacit admission.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the vitality of the tacit admission rule within Illinois evidence law, applying it to the specific context of a clandestine gang meeting. It underscores that the expectation of a denial is highly dependent on the circumstances, such as the power dynamics and subject matter discussed in a private setting among co-conspirators. The ruling clarifies that a statement need not be a formal, direct accusation to trigger the rule; implication as a participant in a criminal narrative is sufficient. This precedent solidifies the admissibility of statements from informal settings where silence can be powerfully indicative of guilt, providing a crucial evidentiary tool for prosecutors in cases involving group criminal activity.
