Matthew R. Leisten, Ogle County State’s Attorney’s Office, Oregon
815-732-1170 | E-mail Matthew R. Leisten
Fourth District Appellate Court Reverses Grooming Conviction Due to Improper Admission of Prejudicial and Irrelevant Testimony
In People v. Marshall, 2025 IL App (4th) 240368, the Fourth District Appellate Court reversed a defendant’s grooming conviction because the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant sending a former girlfriend sexually explicit photos when they were minors and testimony from a pastor about the defendant’s church volunteer training.
The defendant was charged with grooming based on a Snapchat exchange that he had with a minor in which he sent her a photo of his genitals. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 ¶¶19 – 20. The defendant and the minor met at a church where the defendant was a volunteer supervisor. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶4.
The trial court granted the state’s motion in limine to allow the defendant’s ex-girlfriend to testify about receiving sexually explicit photos from the defendant when they were minors. The trial court ruled that this testimony was false exculpatory evidence because the defendant denied sending sexually explicit photos to anyone in his police interview. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶¶9, 26. The trial court also granted another motion in limine by the state to allow the church pastor to testify about volunteer training procedures and give his opinion about communications between the volunteers and students because the testimony was relevant to show the defendant’s intent and knowledge. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶11.
The defendant did not testify at his trial, and he was found guilty by a jury. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶¶1, 61.
The appellate court reversed and held that the testimony from the ex-girlfriend and the pastor was improperly admitted. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶¶55, 63. The appellate court noted that the ex-girlfriend’s testimony was unrelated to the charges against him because “[w]hether defendant sent photos of his penis to someone other than B.W. on a prior occasion was not relevant to the current charge.” 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶50. The appellate court concluded that the defendant’s statements denying sending naked photos to anyone during his interview were not exculpatory. Id.
False exculpatory statements such as a false alibi, implicating someone else, denying having contact with a victim, giving numerous explanations on how a victim’s injury occurred, or giving implausible stories about how a defendant’s own injuries occurred are admissible as admissions and as evidence of consciousness of guilt. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶48.
However, a lie is not a false exculpatory statement if it is not directly related to the charged offense. Therefore, the ex-girlfriend’s testimony about receiving nude photos from the defendant was unrelated to the charges against him. The defendant’s denial of sending anyone naked photos of himself was not exculpatory. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 ¶¶49 – 50.
The appellate court also found that the ex-girlfriend’s testimony was unduly prejudicial because there was no probative purpose for it and her testimony had “absolutely nothing to do with whether the defendant was guilty of grooming B.W. at the age of 20.” 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶55.
Next, the appellate court emphasized that the ex-girlfriend’s testimony was improper impeachment on a collateral matter through extrinsic evidence. Although a witness can be impeached through evidence that tends to contradict or undermine the believability of the witness’s testimony, that evidence cannot be offered if it is merely collateral to the issues in the case. Extrinsic evidence, which consists of evidence from someone other than the witness, cannot be used to impeach a witness about a collateral issue. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶¶58 – 59.
The appellate court further emphasized that when a defendant does not testify, evidence cannot be admitted to impeach the defendant’s credibility. (However, the state can still show the falsity of a defendant’s exculpatory statements. See People v. Watson, 103 Ill.App.3d 992, 431 N.E.2d 1350, 1353, 59 Ill.Dec. 593 (4th Dist. 1982). This should be limited to the substantive evidence at issue in the case). Since the defendant did not put his credibility at issue in the trial, the state was not allowed to discredit him through impeachment. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 ¶¶60 – 62. Further, the state improperly impeached him on a collateral matter through the ex-girlfriend; namely, to contradict his police interview in which he denied sending nude photos to other people. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶63.
Finally, the appellate court concluded that the pastor’s testimony about the defendant’s conversations with the minor was irrelevant to establish whether the defendant had the intent to commit grooming. The pastor did not have firsthand knowledge about whether the defendant was ever informed about the church policies that he violated when he communicated with the minor, nor did the pastor train the defendant. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶¶70 – 71.
The state also used the pastor’s testimony as improper propensity evidence because it argued to the jury that since the defendant was willing to violate church policies, then he was willing to violate the law. Therefore, the pastor’s testimony should have been barred. 2025 IL App (4th) 240368 at ¶72.
For more information about criminal law, see CRIMINAL RECORDS: EXPUNGEMENT AND OTHER RELIEF (IICLE®, 2024). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.