SECOND DIVISION
OCTOBER 22, 2002

On appeal, defendant, Judson Manning, contends that theState failed to prove him guilty of child abduction beyond areasonable doubt, that the trial court erred in refusing todefine the word "conceal" for the jury, and that he was renderedineffective assistance of counsel.

Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of childabduction (720 ILCS 5/10-5(b)(6) (West 2000)) and sentenced to 20months in prison. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

During opening arguments, defense counsel told the jurydefendant would testify that he was concerned his wife wasmistreating their child. Because of this mistreatment anddefendant's concern for the child's "future well being,"defendant decided the child should not see her mother. Thedefense provided no evidence at trial of any mistreatment bydefendant's wife and defendant informed the court he did not wishto testify.

At trial, Olga Manning testified with the assistance of atranslator. She stated she was married to defendant in December1998, and they had a two-year-old daughter, T.M. Olga admittedthat her marriage to defendant was troubled and the couple wasconsidering separating. On the morning of December 23, 1998,Olga took T.M. to the babysitter and went to work. Defendantcalled her and said he would pick up T.M. and would help Olga fixher car after work. Around 4 p.m., Olga received a telephonecall from the babysitter requesting permission to let T.M. leavewith defendant. Olga told the babysitter that defendant hadpermission to pick up T.M.

After work, Olga waited for three hours, but defendant didnot arrive. When she went home, defendant and the child were notin the apartment. Olga testified the apartment was in disarrayand T.M.'s clothes, the stove, the refrigerator, and Olga's andT.M.'s passports were missing. Olga called the police.

Olga stated that she, defendant and T.M. had planned tospend Christmas in Iowa with defendant's mother, Trena Manning. Olga called Trena, who told her not to worry, defendant "was justbuying some things." When Olga again called Trena on December25, 1998, someone picked up the telephone, then hung up on her. Ten minutes later, Trena called Olga and told her never to callher home again.

Olga testified she went to Iowa twice to look for herdaughter - once on December 28, 1998, and again on December 31,1998. On December 28, 1998, Olga went to the police station andto Trena's home. T.M. was not at Trena's home, but Olga saw thatthe child's clothes were there. Trena did not give Olga atelephone number or an address where T.M. could be reached. WhenOlga returned to Iowa on December 31, 1998, she contacted EthelPierangelli, a friend of Trena's.

Trena Manning testified that defendant, Olga and T.M. wereto spend Christmas at her house in Iowa. Because Olga anddefendant were having marital problems, Trena arranged fordefendant to stay at her friend Ethel's home, while Olga and T.M.stayed with her. However, defendant and T.M. arrived at herhouse without Olga on December 24, 1998.

Trena testified that Olga called her on December 25, 1998,but she did not tell Olga her husband and child were therebecause she hoped to convince defendant to return to Chicago andresolve his marital problems. Trena further testified that Olgaand two of her friends, Yolanda and Hector, arrived at Trena'shouse on December 26, 1998. When Olga asked Trena where T.M.was, Trena responded that defendant had taken the child toMcDonald's and would be back shortly. According to Trena, Olgathrew herself on the floor and screamed, "what do these peoplewant from me" and "my baby." She then began pulling out herhair. Yolanda and Ethel attempted to comfort Olga. Trena statedshe was distraught and went to her room.

After Olga calmed down, Trena and Olga spoke in Trena'sroom. Olga told Trena that Hector and Yolanda had driven her toIowa and they had to go back to Chicago because Yolanda wasstarting a new job that evening. Trena testified that Olga andher friends departed approximately one hour before defendant andT.M. returned to the house.

Trena stated that she received a telephone call from apolice officer at some point, inquiring about defendant and T.M. She did not tell the officer defendant and T.M. were staying withher because she assumed the officer knew they were there.

Trena saw Olga again on January 2, 1999, at Ethel's home. Trena testified she was very upset and did not remember what sheand Olga said to each other. The next day, Ethel went to herhome and discovered that defendant and T.M. had left.

Ethel Pierangelli testified that Olga went to Trena'sapartment on December 26, 1998, and asked where her baby was. Olga then threw herself on the floor and pulled at her own hairuntil Ethel and Yolanda calmed her down. Ethel stated that sheand Olga were close friends and that Olga called her after shereturned to Chicago to ask "is little [T.M.] all right orsomething like that." Ethel also stated that she "probably"called Olga in Chicago other times to tell her how T.M. was.

On the night of January 1, 1999, Olga, Yolanda and Hectorreturned to Iowa and went to Ethel's house. Ethel took them to amotel for the night. The next day they moved to a vacantapartment in one of the buildings Ethel managed.

Ethel testified that on January 2, 1999, she went to Trena'shome to wish Trena a happy birthday. Because Trena and defendantwere arguing, Trena went to stay with Ethel. Ethel returned toTrena's the next day to get Trena's medication and discoveredthat defendant and T.M. were gone. Olga, Yolanda and Hector leftIowa on January 4, 1999.

At 11 p.m. on January 10, 1999, defendant was apprehended inHidalgo, Texas, while attempting to cross the border from Mexicointo the United States. Olga was reunited with T.M. on January11, 1999, in Texas. Defendant had never contacted Olga duringtheir absence.

During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trialjudge asking, "Is there a legal definition of the word'concealed.' If so what is it." The court responded, "There isno legal definition for the word 'concealed.' However, pleaseuse your own observations and experience in life and review theinstruction which begins 'to sustain the charge of childabduction the State must prove the following propositions ***.'"Defense counsel objected to the response, arguing that the judgeshould only tell the jury there is no legal definition of theword "concealed" and nothing more.

The jury deliberated for approximately another 1