Following a jury trial, the defendant, Brandon Briones, was convicted of criminaldamage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(1)(a) (West 2002)) and sentenced to two years inprison. On appeal, the defendant argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We reverse and remand.

FACTS

On May 30, 2002, the State charged the defendant by an amended information withcriminal damage to property worth more than $300 (720 ILCS 5/21-1(1)(a), (2) (West 2002))and aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-1.2(a)(1) (West 2002)).

At the defendant's jury trial, the State presented the following evidence.

In the early morning hours of May 11, 2002, Darrel Moulton, with another man whostood in the darkness, knocked on the door of Michael Peyton and Darla Wynn's mobile home. When Michael opened the door, Darrel and Michael argued.

Darla was lying in bed where she could view the door. When Michael and Darrel movedaway from the door, Darla recognized the defendant, her nephew, poking his head around Darrelto smile in the light. Michael, who had a vision problem and was not wearing his glasses, wasunsure of the accompanying man's identity.

Michael shut the door but anticipated danger, so he began to dress. After five minutes,gunshots were fired at the mobile home. Darla and Michael exited the home and drove awayin their truck. Darla and Michael recognized the defendant's voice when the defendant shoutedthat Darla and Michael were leaving.

Michael saw Darrel jump onto the back of the truck, after which the rear window on thetruck's camper shell shattered. When she heard the window break, Darla saw the defendantstanding on the rear bumper of the truck. After the window shattered, Michael stopped thetruck and saw two men running down the road. When Darla shouted at the defendant, hestopped and turned. The defendant was not wearing a shirt.

Approximately seven minutes later, after Michael and Darla had driven to an unmannedpolice station, they returned to their residence. Their mobile home was on fire, the windowsin their other two vehicles and in Darla's daughter's vehicle were broken, and police and firepersonnel were on the scene. As a mechanic, Michael estimated that the cost to replace thewindows exceeded $300.

Don Tate, Darla and Michael's neighbor, testified that on the night in question, hereturned home after midnight and heard yelling, gunshots, and windows smashing. He enteredhis home, telephoned the police, and returned outside. Don saw Darrel and Brian Thompsonenter the mobile home, saw a "big flash of light," and saw the two men run from the mobilehome. Don also witnessed another male, wearing no shirt, running near the mobile home, butDon could not positively identify the man as the defendant.

In denying the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, the circuit court noted that theevidence was "not overwhelming."

During opening statements, the defendant's counsel stated:

"The evidence will show that [the defendant] gave a statement to Officer Squibb. Hetold Officer Squibb[:] [']I wasn't there. I was over here at Conrad and Tina Wynn'shouse.[']

* * *

[The defendant] has no obligation to testify. *** But he's going to get up hereon this witness stand and he's going to testify and he's going to tell you the truth and he'sgoing to subject himself to rigorous cross-examination by the State and he's going todo that because he's going to tell you the truth."

The defense called Darrel Moulton, who had pled guilty to residential arson with regardto the present case. Darrel testified that on the night in question, he approached Michael andDarla's mobile home with Avery Swarms, the defendant's cousin, not the defendant. Darreltestified that he and Avery had been drinking at Brian Thompson's house, that they approachedMichael and Darla's mobile home, that Darrel argued with Michael, and that Brian Thompsonshot at the mobile home. Darrel testified that when Michael and Darla attempted to leave, heand Avery chased them. Darrel testified that he broke Michael and Darla's truck window witha baseball bat and that Avery ran behind him.

Darrel testified that after he had broken Michael's truck window, he threw the baseballbat in a field, kicked in the front door of the mobile home, and ignited the home. Darreltestified that he then approached neighbors for a ride to town, including Conrad Wynn, whosewindow he approached for his request. Darrel then saw the defendant driving in his vehicle. Darrel asked the defendant for a ride, the defendant agreed, and the police later apprehendedthem together.

During cross-examination, Darrel admitted that in a handwritten statement, given topolice on May 30, he stated:

"The last I saw of [the defendant] before he picked me up at the church was whenI was in Brian's back yard and Darla and Mike were leaving. He picked up something andbroke out their back window on their camper shell on the truck. That's when Brian's inthe house getting another weapon."

Conrad and Tina Wynn, the defendant's brother and sister-in-law, lived near Darla andMichael. Conrad and Tina testified that at least 30 minutes before the fire started at Michaeland Darla's home, the defendant arrived at the Wynn home and watched a movie with them. While the defendant was in their home, they heard pounding noises and saw the fire throughtheir window. Before the defendant left their home, Darrel appeared at the window, and Conraddeclined Darrel's request for a ride to town.

Conrad testified that approximately two weeks later, Avery admitted to him that thedefendant was charged with crimes Avery had committed. Conrad testified that Avery and thedefendant looked similar and that he sometimes confused the two.

Ramona Forbes, the defendant's mother, testified that Avery, who was her nephew,admitted to burning Michael and Darla's mobile home.

Avery Swarms testified that he lived two blocks from Darla and Michael's mobile home. Avery testified that on the night of the fire, he alternated between his home and WilliamDeMain's home and that he witnessed the fire from across the street. Avery began walkingtoward the fire but returned home when he saw the fire and emergency vehicles. Avery deniedinvolvement in the activities that damaged Michael and Darla's mobile home and vehicles. Avery also denied telling Conrad or the defendant's mother that the defendant was charged withcrimes he had committed. Avery testified that he did not see Darrel, Brian, the defendant,Michael, or Darla that night.

William DeMain testified that on the night of the fire, Avery was at his home early inthe evening and William fell asleep on his couch. When William woke, he stepped outside,saw the fire, and walked toward it. Heading that way, William encountered Avery, who was alsowalking toward the fire. The police and fire vehicles arrived thereafter.

The defendant did not testify.

During the State's rebuttal, the State recalled Officer Robert Squibb. Defense counselobjected to the State's questions to Officer Squibb regarding the defendant's postarreststatement. In his statement, the defendant asserted that on the night of the fire, he spoke withChrystal Logsdon until approximately 10:45 p.m., went to his grandmother's to watchtelevision, drove around, saw the fire, went to Conrad's home, and watched the fire. The courtheld the defendant's statements admissible as admissions by a party opponent, an exception tothe hearsay rule.

The circuit court also stated:

"You said yesterday in opening statements your client was going to testify, soI kind of anticipated that. *** I want to at least make a record on that."

In response to the circuit court's questioning, the defendant stated that it was his decision,along with his counsel's, that he not testify.

During the jury instruction conference, defense counsel tendered a jury instructionregarding the weight to be given identification testimony (Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions,Criminal, No. 3.15 (4th ed. 2000)). The circuit court suggested including "or" between eachelement, the State agreed, and defense counsel withdrew the proposed instruction, which hadomitted the word "or." As a result, the jury was instructed as follows:

"When you weigh the identification testimony of a witness, you should considerall the facts and circumstances in evidence, including, but not limited to, the following:

The opportunity the witness had to view the offender at the time of the offense,or

The witness's degree of attention at the time of the offense, or

The level of certainty shown by the witness when confronting the defendant, or

The length of time between the offense and the identification confrontation."

The jury found the defendant guilty of criminal damage to property over $300 but notguilty of aggravated discharge of a firearm. On December 5, 2002, the circuit court sentencedthe defendant to two years in prison. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Pursuant to both the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. VI) and the IllinoisConstitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,