## Facts

- Kenneth Howard was charged with armed robbery after Alfred Rosenbloom, a University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) professor, reported that a man took his wallet at gunpoint near the UIC campus.
- Rosenbloom testified that the robber approached from behind, forced him around a corner, pointed a handgun at him face-to-face, and demanded, “Give me your wallet.”
- The robber also demanded Rosenbloom’s ATM PIN.
- Rosenbloom chased the robber afterward and saw him get into a red car; Rosenbloom was able to read and report the license plate number.
- Police located a vehicle matching the description, and Rosenbloom later identified the car and identified Howard in both a photographic array and a live lineup.
- Rosenbloom also identified distinctive contents taken from his wallet, including foreign currency he kept as travel souvenirs.
- Over defense objection, the prosecution called Steven Melamed, another UIC professor, to testify about a separate armed robbery near the same area in which he said Howard took his wallet after coming up from behind with a gun and fleeing along nearby streets.
- Melamed identified Howard in a photo array and later in a live lineup; he also identified a black wallet as matching the style and material of his stolen wallet.
- The State offered Melamed’s testimony as “other-crimes” evidence to show identity through modus operandi, pointing to shared features: both victims were white male UIC professors, both robberies occurred near the same campus area and streets, and the robber approached from behind with a gun and fled in a similar direction.
- Howard denied involvement, argued misidentification, and claimed he was at home when the charged robbery occurred.
- Howard also testified, and the State impeached him with a certified record of a prior burglary conviction.
- The trial court admitted Melamed’s testimony for identification purposes and gave the jury a limiting instruction directing it to consider the other-crimes evidence only on identity.
- The jury found Howard guilty of armed robbery, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Melamed’s prior robbery as other-crimes evidence to prove identity through modus operandi.
2. Whether the similarities between the charged robbery and the Melamed robbery were sufficiently distinctive to permit an inference that the same person committed both crimes.
3. Whether the trial court erred by allowing impeachment of Howard with a prior burglary conviction, and if so, whether any error required reversal.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Melamed’s testimony as other-crimes evidence to prove identity by modus operandi.
- The court concluded that, taken together, the shared features (two UIC professors as victims, the same small geographic area near UIC, approach from behind with a handgun, and similar flight path) supported a distinct pattern that was relevant to the disputed question of identity.
- The court ruled that the probative value of the other-crimes evidence on identity was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, especially given the limiting instruction and the controlled presentation of the collateral offense.
- The court also held the trial court did not commit reversible error by admitting the certified record of Howard’s prior burglary conviction for impeachment.
- Even assuming arguable error in the impeachment ruling, the court found no basis for reversal because the identification evidence and corroboration were strong.
- The conviction was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence that a defendant committed other crimes is generally inadmissible when offered only to show a propensity to commit crime.
- Other-crimes evidence may be admissible for a non-propensity purpose such as identity, including when it shows modus operandi.
- To use modus operandi to prove identity, the charged and uncharged offenses must share a high degree of similarity, including features that are not common to most offenses of that type, so the conduct can be treated as the work of the same offender.
- Admissibility of other-crimes evidence rests largely within the trial court’s discretion, subject to review for abuse of discretion.
- Even when offered for a proper purpose, other-crimes evidence must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; a limiting instruction may reduce the risk of misuse.
- A testifying defendant may be impeached with a prior conviction when the trial court determines the conviction has value on credibility and that value outweighs the risk that the jury will misuse it as character evidence, considering factors such as the nature of the offense, its age, and similarity to the charged crime.
- An evidentiary error warrants reversal only if it likely affected the verdict; otherwise, the error is harmless.

## Conclusion

In People v. Howard, the appellate court affirmed an armed-robbery conviction, holding that testimony about a prior, similar robbery of another UIC professor was properly admitted to prove identity through modus operandi and that impeachment with Howard’s prior burglary conviction was not reversible error, particularly given the limiting instruction and the strength of the identification evidence.


People v. Howard, 708 N.E.2d 1212 (1999)