People v. King

Summary

The court held that the defendant's substitution-of-judge motion was untimely because the original judge had already made a substantive ruling granting access to protected cell-tower records. It held that the trial court improperly admitted the entirety of the crime-scene analyst's testimony, that the error was not harmless, and that certain emotionally charged testimony about the victim's family's reactions was inadmissible on retrial. The court nevertheless held that the State's closing argument did not improperly define reasonable doubt and that the evidence was sufficient to permit a retrial. The appellate judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.