People v. Potts

(Prior court opinion withdrawn 4/21/21.) Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st degree murder of his former girlfriend. Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow a witness, who emerged after trial, to testify on Defendant's behalf without revealing his identity to the public. Court was not required to close its proceedings to the public. Defendant's generic allegation that witness feared retaliation does not overcome constitutional presumption of openness. Court properly allowed State's argument that if victim's friend had made prior inconsistent statements to detective, defense would have introduced those statements to impeach her, just as it sought to do with another detective. Pathologist, as an expert witness, was properly allowed to testify about findings and conclusions of a non-testifying expert that he used in forming his opinion, and he testified that the peer-review process is a standard procedure for reaching a final determination as to cause of death. A jury could reasonable infer from evidence, and State could reasonably argue, that Defendant would consider killing another former girlfriend, even if he ultimately  decided to kill this victim. (HOWSE and BURKE, concurring.)