Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
20,
998 N.E.2d 1247, 1254 (wherein the Illinois Supreme Court distinguishes rules of
relevancy against admission of other-crimes evidence).
13. Rather, this statement is simply relevant, substantive evidence to demonstrate he caused
the victims death.
By:
(~VJLOiiJJJAfr1E((~
By:__
Edwin Parkinson
Special Prosecutor
725 S. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62702
et~7
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
7. Gomez also saw defendant frequently at the local grocery store, as well as at local bars.
8. Gomez maintains that the relationship was not romantic until August of 2006.
9. Dustin Strothoff will testify that he worked at the Quincy Regional Airport in the summer
of 1998, at which time Gomez was likewise employed with the airport.
10. Strothoff was defendants neighbor.
11. Strothoff observed defendant and Gomez at the fitness center together.
12. Strothoff observed the two work out, and he often saw them speaking together[.]
13. Strothoff lived in the same neighborhood as defendant, and he observed Gomezs vehicle
parked in front of defendants residence. He will testify that Gomez drove an older Saturn
or GEO Storm in a dark green or blue color.
14. Gomez would testify that she drove a green Neon and a dark blue Saturn during this time.
15. Strothoff knew what kind of vehicle Gomez drove, as he previously observed her arriving
or leaving the fitness center, where they exercised at the same time.
16. Strothoff observed Gomezs vehicle in front of defendants residence from the summer
before Corys death until after her death and they moved to their new house.
17. Strothoff would testify that the vehicle was parked in front of defendants home more
frequently after Corys death.
18. Following the first trial of this cause, in an e-mail to Detective Gibson, Gomez stated, I
did knew [sic] Curt when his wife was alive. I heard I was ruled out because I didnt
know Curt until after his wife died [sic] that is not correct. He was every where [sic] I
was both when she was alive and after her death[.] (See Peoples Exhibit 1)
19. The above-mentioned evidence is relevant in the instant cause.
20. Evidence is admissible if it is relevant to an issue in dispute and its probative value is
not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. People v. Aguilar, 265 Ill. App. 3d
105, 113, 637 N.E.2d 1221,1226 (3d Dist. 1994).
21. Evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of
consequence to the determination of an action more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence. People v. Aguilar, 265 Ill. App. 3d 105, 113, 637 N.E.2d 1221,
1226 (3d Dist. 1994).
22. The guilt or innocence of the accused is the issue in a criminal trial. People v. Ag-ullar,
265 Ill. App. 3d 105, 113, 637 N.E.2d 1221, 1226 (3d Dist. 1994).
23. This evidence is relevant, quite simply, to demonstrate the relationship of the parties.
24. Moreover, the evidence is relevant to demonstrate that defendant was romantically
interested in Erika Gomez.
25. It is well established that evidence of other offenses is not admissible for the purpose of
showing the defendants disposition or propensity to commit crime. People v. IlIgen, 145
Ill. 2d 353, 364, 583 N.E.2d 515, 519 (1991).
26. This rule is codified in the Illinois Rules of Evidence 404(a): Evidence of a persons
character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in
conformity therewith on a particular occasion[.]
27. However, Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts
...
28. Such evidence is admissible, however, where relevant to prove inodus operandi, intent,
identity, motive or absence of mistake. People v. lllgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353, 36465, 583
N.E.2d 515, 519 (1991).
29. In fact, the Illinois Supreme Court has held that evidence of other offenses is admissible
if it is relevant for any purpose other than to show the propensity to commit crime.
People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353, 365, 583 N.E.2d 515, 519 (1991).
30. When evidence of other crimes is offered, the trial judge must weigh its probative value
against its prejudicial effect, and may exclude the evidence if its prejudicial effect
substantially outweighs its probative value. People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353, 365, 583
N.E.2d 515, 519 (1991)(internal citations omitted).
31. The above-mentioned evidence is admissible to demonstrate motive.
32. Motive, although not an element of murder, may be a material factor at issue in
establishing guilt, particularly when the only evidence is circumstantial. People v.
Hendricks, 137 Ill. 2d 31, 53, 560 N.E.2d 611, 621 (1990).
33. Thus, the State may offer evidence tending to establish a defendants motivation even
though it involves the potential of disclosing a defendants prior immoral or improper
conduct. People v. Hendricks, 137 Ill. 2d 31, 53, 560 N.E.2d 611, 621 (1990).
34. Evidence that defendant was romantically interested in Gomez is admissible bad-acts
evidence (defendants prior immoral or improper conduct) as it clearly demonstrates a
motive to want his wife, Cory Lovelace, dead. See People v. Hendricks, 137 Ill. 2d 31,
53, 560 N.E.2d 611, 621 (1990).
35. Such evidence is admissible to prove: motive, state of mind, intent, and knowledge.
WHEREFORE, the People of the State of Illinois respectfUlly pray that this Honorable
Court grant the States motion and any and all other relief as this Honorable Court deems just
and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
B~:(~4AA~(a
Vth4Auo/L
Julia~aye Wykoff
Special Prosecutor
725 S. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62702
By:
&i2u4JtO1~
Edwin Parkinson
Special Prosecutor
725 5. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62702
C. ~Y
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
7. Gomezs daughter, Darlene Steinkamp, who also lived in the home, suffered from the
same symptoms.
8. At first, Gomez believed she and her daughter suffered from the flu.
9. Due to the above referenced symptoms, unbeknownst to defendant, Darlene stayed home
from school.
10. Darlene observed defendant in the kitchen. Darlene reported this incident to her mother,
Erika Gomez.
11. Following this incident, Gomez threw away all of the food in the home and changed the
locks to the home.
12. After taking these steps, both Gomez and Darlene recovered from their sickness.
13. Evidence of defendants poisoning of Gomez and her daughter was evidenced through a
public filing in Gomezs divorce case. (See Peoples Exhibit 1)
14. Moreover, evidence of poisoning is evidenced through e-mail correspondence between
Gomez and Detective Gibson. (See Peoples Exhibit 2)
15. The above-mentioned evidence is relevant in the instant cause and is admissible by
statute under 725 ILCS 5/115-7.45/115-7.4.
16. Under 725 ILCS 5/115-7.45/115-7.4(a), evidence in domestic violence cases, In a
criminal prosecution in which the defendant is accused of an offense of domestic
violence as defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic
Violence Act of 1986, or first degree murder or second degree murder when the
commission of the offense involves domestic violence, evidence of the defendants
commission of another offense or offenses of domestic violence is admissible, and may
be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. (emphasis added).
17. Under 725 ILCS 5/11 5-7.45/115-7.4(b), In weighing the probative value of the evidence
against undue prejudice to the defendant, the court may consider: (1) the proximity in
time to the charged or predicate offense; (2) the degree of factual similarity to the
charged or predicate offense; or (3) other relevant facts and circumstances.
18. Evidence is admissible if it is relevant to an issue in dispute and its probative value is
not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. People v. Aguilar, 265 Ill. App. 3d
26. It is well established that evidence of other offenses is not admissible for the purpose of
showing the defendants disposition or propensity to commit crime. People v. Illgen, 145
Ill. 2d 353, 364, 583 N.E.2d 515, 519 (1991).
27. This rule is codified in the Illinois Rules of Evidence 404(a): Evidence of a persons
character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in
conformity therewith on a particular occasion[.j
28. However, Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts
...
Lovelace and Erika Gomez, at a time when defendant was arguably interested in a new
woman.
33. In the instant cause, defendants conduct is admissible as other-crimes evidence to prove:
modus operandi, common plan, intent, preparation, opportunity, motive, knowledge, and
absence of mistake or accident.
34. Afler all, the act of poisoning someone carries with it a reasonable inference that the
conduct was premeditated, planned, and carried out.
35. Moreover, it demonstrates that defendant was able to form the requisite criminal intent
for first-degree murder. ([E]vidence of the defendants involvement in another offense
may be shown to establish the necessary criminal intent of the defendant in the offense
charged. People v. McKibbins, 96111. 2d 176, 186, 449 N.E.2d 821, 825 (1983).)
36. Thus, for these reasons, the evidence is relevant and is admissible other-crimes evidence
to prove: modus operandi, common plan, intent, preparation, opportunity, motive,
knowledge, and absence of mistake or accident.
WHEREFORE, the People of the State of Illinois respectfully pray that this Honorable
Court grant the States motion and any and all other relief as this Honorable Court deems just
and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
By:
______________
Julia ye Wykoff
Special Prosecutor
725 5. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62702
By:
___________
Edwin Parkinson
Special Prosecutor
725 S. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62702
)
)
)
Petitioner,
vs.
No. 99-D-366
ERIKA R. GOMEZ-STEINKAMP,
)
)
Transfer To Sangamon
Modification Of Child Support And Other Relief, filed June 10, 2014
2.
Respondent believes said petition is moot and has filed a motion to that
effect.
Section 511 of the Illinois Marriage And Dissolution Of Marriage Act
prOvide~ that:
3.
8.
incarcerated.
10.
said conditions allow him to leave his house on Sundays to attend church.
12.
with his bond conditions; whereas there is almost a 100 per cent guarantee that
an incarcerated defendant will not get out of jail.
13.
is very fearful of her safety in Adams County and is adamant about not setting
foot in the county for the following reasons:
a. during their marriage Lovelace physically abused the
Respondent and attempted to poison her;
b. it has been reported in the newspaper that, while Resondent
did not testify at Lovelaces first trial, she may be a
witness for the prosecution at his second trial.
(Quincy Herald Whig, posted 6/6/10, updated 6/7/10);
c. according to said article, Lovelaces defense team is
subpoenaing phone records of contact between the
investigative detective and the Respondent;
d; although false, rumors are circulating in Quincy that
the case against Lovelace started because the Respondent
was dating said detective and fed him information
implicating Lovelace;
a Lovelade is a beloved figure in Quincy and his release
emboldened his many supporters, who have held
rallys for him;
f. Lovelaces father has threatened to hurt Respondent;
g~ Respondent also fears that Lovelaces, family or supporters,
emboldened by his release, could hurt her if she
returns to Quincy.
14.
Journal-Register reported on June 292016 that a murder trial witness was shot
3
the night before the trial was to begin. (See Exhibit A attached hereto.)
WHEREFORE, the Respondent prays that this case be transferred for all
post-judgment probeedings to Sangamon County.
Count II
Hold Evidentiary Hearings In Menard Or Other Eighth Circuit County Not Adams
NOW COMES THE RESPONDENT, ER[KA R. Gomez, by her attorney,
Samuel J. Cahnman, and for Count II of her motion states:
1-2. Respondent realleges paragraphs 1-2 of Count I, as paragraphs 1-2 of
this Count II.
3-li. Respondent realleges paragrphs 6-14 of Count I, as paragraphs 3-11 of
this Count II.
13. In the event this Court denies Respondents request to transfer this case
to Sangamon County, this Court should exercise its discretion to hold any
proceedings requiring the Respondents presence in Menard County or another
county of the Eighth Judicial Circuit other than Adams.
WHREFORE, the Respondent prays for this Court to hold any hearings
requiring the Respondents presence in Menard County or another
County of the Eighth Judicial Circuit other than Adams.
C. -V
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS
ADAMS COUNTY, QUINCY, ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILlINOIS,
Plaintiff
v.
CURTIS T. LOVELACE
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
12. The guilt or innocence of the accused is the issue in a criminal trial. People v. Aguilar,
265 Ill. App. 3d 105, 113, 637 N.E.2d 1221, 1226 (3d Dist. 1994).
13. In the instant cause, this evidence is relevant, for the States evidence demonstrates that
defendant smothered his wife, Cory Lovelace.
14. Moreover, the States evidence demonstrates clustered fingernail marks on the lefl/front
of the victim, Cory Lovelaces, neck.
15. Evidence that defendant abused Gomez, specifically grasping her neck, make this critical
fact of consequence in this action more probable than it would be without the evidence.
16. This evidence is particularly probative in a case
such as this
where defendant
...
21. In fact, the Illinois Supreme Court has held that evidence of other offenses is admissible
if it is relevant for any purpose other than to show the propensity to commit crime.
People v. Jllgen, 145 111. 2d 353, 365, 583 N.E.2d 515, 519 (1991).
22. When evidence of other crimes is offered, the trial judge must weigh its probative value
against its prejudicial effect, and may exclude the evidence if its prejudicial effect
substantially outweighs its probative value. People v. Jilgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353, 365, 583
N.E.2d 515, 519 (l99l)(internal citations omitted).
23. The term other-crimes evidence encompasses misconduct or criminal acts that
occurred either before or after the allegedly criminal conduct for which the defendant is
standing trial. People v. Spyres, 359 Ill. App. 3d 1108, 1112, 835 N.E.2d 974, 977 (4th
Dist. 2005)(emphasis added).
24. Despite the fact that this incident occurred in the years following Corys death, the
evidence is extremely probative.
25. The State contends that Cory Lovelace died as a result of smothering, with visible
clustered fingernail marks on her neck.
26. Gomez would testi~ that defendant became violent while drinlcing, and in so doing
would purposefully grasp her by the throat.
27. Given the similarities between the conduct, such evidence is admissible other-crimes
evidence to demonstrate modus operandi, common plan, preparation, knowledge, intent,
and absence of mistake or accident.
28. Moreover, it demonstrates that defendant was able to form the requisite criminal intent
for first-degree murder. ([E]videnee of the defendants involvement in another offense
may be shown to establish the necessary criminal intent of the defendant in the offense
charged. People v. McKibbins, 96 Ill. 2d 176, 186, 449 N.E.2d 821, 825 (1983).)
29. Thus, for these reasons, the evidence is relevant and is admissible other-crimes evidence
to prove: moclus operandi, common plan, preparation, knowledge, intent, and absence of
mistake or accident.
WHEREFORE, the People of the State of Illinois respectfully pray that this Honorable
Court grant the States motion and any and all other relief as this Honorable Court deems just
and equitable.
RespectfUlly submitted,
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
By: (~7uA]A 4?
Julia aye Wykoff
Special Prosecutor
725 5. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62702
&~
By:
Edwin Parkinson
Special Prosecutor
725 5. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62702
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
the name of defendants first wife, the victim in the instant cause.
2. For example, defendant attacked Gomez in July of 2012, whereby he grabbed Gomez and
said, Cory, you cant do anything to me.
3. Gomez would testi& that defendant would drink heavily and fall into a fit of anger and
rage.
4. During these fits of rage, defendant would refer to Gomez as Cory.
5. On another occasion, she locked herself into a bedroom and placed a chair underneath a
doorknob to keep defendant away from her.
6. Defendant beat on the door and yelled, You shouldnt lock me out Cory.
14. Evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of
consequence to the determination of an action more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence. People v. Aguilar, 265 Ill. App. 3d 105, 113, 637 N.E.2d 1221,
1226 (3d Dist. 1994).
15. The guilt or innocence of the accused is the issue in a criminal trial. People v. Aguilar,
265 Ill. App. 3d 105, 113, 637 N.E.2d 1221, 1226 (3d Dist. 1994).
16. In the instant cause, this evidence is relevant, for the States evidence demonstrates that
defendant perpetrated an act of violence against his wife.
17. The State intends to present evidence that defendant and Cory would often fight, at times
physically, during bouts of drinking.
18. Moreover, the evidence is particularly probative, where defendant explicitly calls Gomez
Cory during instances of domestic violence.
19. This evidence is particularly probative in a case
such as this
where defendant
...
may be shown to establish the necessary criminal intent of the defendant in the offense
charged. People v. McKibbins, 96111. 2d 176, 186, 449 N.E.2d 821, 825 (1983).)
31. Thus, for these reasons, the evidence is relevant and is admissible other-crimes evidence
to prove: modus operandi, motive, opportunity, knowledge, intent, common design,
absence of mistake or accident, consciousness of guilt, and the absence of an innocent
frame of mind.
WHEREFORE, the People of the State of Illinois respectfully pray that this Honorable
Court grant the States motion and any and all other relief as this Honorable Court deems just
and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
By:
____________________
By:
i2A-n/)C~
Edwin Parkinson
Special Prosecutor
725 5. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62702