People v. Luna

Defendant and another person were charged with first degree murder for 1993 shooting deaths of seven people at restaurant; Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, after severed jury trial. Prosecutor's remarks complimenting State's fingerprint expert were not improper, as they were based on expert's testimony and inferences, and argument that expert's credibility was not meaningfully challenged. Prosecutor's argument that Defendant's DNA expert was "motivated by money" was proper effort to establish possible bias. Court properly denied Defendant's motion in limine to admit out-of-court statements from two witnesses. Statements were hearsay but were not self-incriminating statements against declarants' penal interests. Witnesses' admission to being present at crime scene and seeing murders occur, but with no evidence that witnesses intended to obstruct justice, does not render them statements against penal interest sufficient for exception. (LAVIN and FITZGERALD SMITH, concurring.)