SIXTH DIVISION
March 30, 2001

No. 1-98-3142

JUSTICE BUCKLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

In October 1996, the State charged defendant Ronald Hayes, ina 27-count indictment for murder, attempted murder, aggravatedvehicular hijacking, aggravated battery, armed robbery, aggravatedkidnaping, and aggravated unlawful restraint. In March 1998, thecircuit court conducted a jury trial. The evidence adduced attrial related to two separate acts allegedly committed by defendant. With respect to the first act, the trial court heardevidence relating to an early-morning incident in which defendantallegedly held several victims at gunpoint and stole a maroon ChevyCaprice belonging to one of the victims. The trial court alsoheard evidence relating to a second incident that occurredapproximately 20 hours after the first. With respect to the secondincident, the trial court heard evidence that defendant and twoaccomplices used the stolen car to abduct two victims, murder one,and attempt to murder the other. While the trial court heardevidence relating to both of these incidents, defendant wasactually on trial for only the second incident.

During jury deliberations, one of the jurors indicated, forthe first time, that he could not understand English very well andhad difficulty following the testimony. The trial court replacedthat juror with one of the alternates that had been alreadydischarged.

The jury convicted defendant of murder, attempted murder,aggravated vehicular hijacking, armed robbery, and aggravatedbattery. The trial court denied defendant's motions for a mistrialand a new trial. In June 1998, the trial court sentenced defendantto 60 years' imprisonment for murder and 20 years for attemptedmurder, to be served consecutively. Additionally, the trial courtsentenced defendant to 15 years for armed robbery, to be servedconcurrently. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial courterred when it (1) dismissed the juror and replaced him with analternate, rather than declaring a mistrial; (2) allowed the juryto hear evidence of other crimes; and (3) ordered defendant toserve consecutive prison sentences. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND 

In September 1997, prior to trial, the State filed a motion toadmit proof of other crimes. At the hearing on its motion, theState explained:

"It is our position that *** evidence [of thefirst incident], [j]udge, is pertinent andrelevant to our case for purposes of identityas well as connecting defendant to the murderitself by virtue of being arrested in the carthat was used during the commission of themurder, or at least immediately preceding theabduction of the victim."

Defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence, arguingthat it was cumulative and highly prejudicial. The trial courtfound that, under the circumstances, evidence of the first incidentwas material and relevant. The trial court further found that suchevidence was not so prejudicial as to warrant exclusion.

In March 1998, a jury trial began. Ronnie Ramsey was one ofthe State's first witnesses. His testimony related to the priorcrimes' evidence to which defendant objected. Ramsey testifiedthat on October 31, 1996, at approximately 3:45 a.m., he was driving his maroon, 1984 Chevy Caprice to a friend's apartment. Ramseyparked his car in the parking lot and walked toward the building. As he walked, he saw two men walking ahead of him. Ramsey enteredthe building and, as he waited for the elevator, one of the menapproached Ramsey and put a gun to his head. The record does notadequately identify this offender but the other offender, identified as the defendant, searched Ramsey's pockets.

Ramsey testified that the two men forced him into the elevatorand began to beat him. They rode the elevator to the apartment ofRamsey's friend, Danny Roseberg. Defendant and the unidentifiedoffender used Ramsey to gain access to Roseberg's apartment. Onceinside, defendant and the unidentified offender led everyone in theapartment to a back room. They ordered the occupants to lie on thefloor while they searched the apartment. The two offenders thenstarted kicking the victims, shouting "I know you got some moremoney somewhere [sic]."

Defendant then took Ramsey's keys and went outside to locatethe car. The other offender remained in the apartment and continued to hold the victims at gunpoint. When defendant returned, headvised his accomplice that he had found Ramsey's car. The twooffenders then broke all the lights in the apartment, broke thedoorknob on the front door, and fled. Ramsey tried to leavethrough the front door but could not. He eventually opened thedoor with a butter knife. He then called the police and provideda description of defendant, the unidentified offender, and the car.

The remaining testimony related directly to the second incident (i.e., the offenses for which defendant was charged in theinstant case). Shamika Boykin testified that on October 31, 1996,at approximately 10 p.m., she and DeMarco Lofton drove to the storein Lofton's car. After leaving the store, Boykin and Lofton werewalking toward Lofton's car when a maroon Chevy Caprice pulled upto them. Two men, later identified as Andre Franklin and RickyHarmon, jumped out of the car, displayed guns, and ordered Boykinand Lofton into the backseat of Lofton's car. Franklin and Harmonalso got into the car. Defendant then stepped out of the ChevyCaprice, got into the driver's seat of Lofton's car, and begandriving. Franklin and Harmon ordered Boykin and Lofton to keeptheir heads down.

Approximately 15 minutes later, they arrived at a ChicagoHousing Authority building. Boykin testified that defendant askedher whether she was ready to die. Franklin and Harmon led Boykinand Lofton upstairs to an abandoned apartment. Defendant appearedin the apartment a few minutes later.

The three offenders searched Boykin and Lofton for valuables. Next, they ordered the victims to remove their clothes. Boykintestified that defendant and one of the other offenders broughtLofton into a bedroom. She heard Lofton beg for his life, followedby two gunshots. The offenders then brought Boykin into the bedroom and threw her onto Lofton's body. She heard defendantinstruct Franklin and Harmon to kill her.

Boykin attempted to run but she was caught and carried backinside the apartment. One of the offenders threw a mattress on topof her and began firing bullets into the mattress. One bulletstruck Boykin in the face. She testified that she held her breathand pretended to be dead while the offenders walked on her body tomake sure they had killed her. The offenders left. Boykin laid onthe floor for several minutes, then fled. She found a policeofficer and reported what happened. The officer went upstairs tocheck on Lofton. He was later declared dead.

On November 1, 1996, at approximately 4 a.m., police officersobserved defendant driving a maroon Chevy Caprice that matched thedescription given by Ramsey. After checking the license plate number the officers activated their emergency lights. Defendantstopped the car and fled on foot. The officers caught defendant, performed a custodial search, and brought him to police headquarters.

While at police headquarters, one of the officers, EdwardSpizziri, learned of a reported homicide that involved male, blackoffenders, and a maroon Chevy Caprice. As Spizziri learned of thehomicide, he observed defendant place an object in his mouth. Spizziri ordered him to spit the object out. Boykin later identified it as her ring. Boykin also identified other items found ondefendant as items belonging to Lofton.

Defendant then made an oral statement that was later reducedto writing. After reviewing the statement and having an opportunity to amend or correct it, defendant signed it. Investigatorsread the statement into the record in open court. It essentiallycorroborated Boykin's testimony regarding the late-night abductionand shootings. The State rested and the trial court gave the juryits instructions. The jury began deliberation and the trial courtdischarged the two alternate jurors. Shortly after deliberationbegan, the jury foreman sent a note to the trial court, stating "Iasked juror Jose Gonzalez if he understood what happened in thecourtroom. He said no. I asked him if his primary language wasSpanish and [whether] he would understand the English testimony. He said no."

The State suggested that Gonzalez be individually voir dired. The State noted that "[h]e was certainly voir dired during jury selec-tion and there was no indication at that time by him or in hisresponses that he had any difficulty let alone impossibility ofunderstanding the English language."

The trial court brought the entire jury back into thecourtroom and questioned Gonzalez. That colloquy confirmed thatGonzalez had significant difficulty understanding English and thathe could not adequately follow the evidence presented.⁽¹⁾

The trial court then spoke with the attorneys in chambers. Defendant moved for a mistrial based on Gonzalez' inability tounderstand the testimony. The State disagreed and asked that thecourt replace Gonzalez with one of the alternate jurors. The trialcourt then instructed the sheriff to recall the alternate juror,Hermile Montes.

Approximately 2