People v. Craigen

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting death. There was substantial evidence that Defendant had knowledge of common criminal design to retaliate against a rival gang member, and that he intended to facilitate scheme for driver to shoot victim. Defendant acted in a way that supported inference that he was part of a common criminal design to fire shots into a car. Where a defendant has not shown that a writing or recorded statement is misleading, Rule of Evidence 106 does not provide an avenue for admitting another writing or recorded statement. (HUDSON and BIRKETT, concurring.)