Defendant Loses Appeal Based On Prejudicial Evidence
An Illinois criminal appeal examined whether a defendant’s prior felony convictions were improperly emphasized before a jury after he testified and asserted self-defense.
In People v. Noland, 2023 IL App (5th) 210397-U, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District considered whether Kadeem Noland was entitled to a new trial after the State introduced certified copies of eight prior felony convictions following his testimony in a first-degree murder trial.
Noland admitted that he shot Jason Thomas but argued that he acted in self-defense because he believed Thomas was armed and that deadly force was necessary to protect himself from imminent death or great bodily harm.
Before trial, the State notified the defense that it intended to use Noland’s prior convictions to impeach his credibility if he testified. The trial court ruled that the State could introduce certified copies of those convictions, while limiting the circumstances surrounding the convictions that could be presented to the jury.
Noland testified and acknowledged the prior convictions during direct examination. The State then introduced certified copies of the convictions, and the trial court read them to the jury. Noland argued on appeal that this improperly emphasized his criminal history and prejudiced the jury against him.
The Fifth District affirmed. The court held that Noland forfeited the issue by failing to make a contemporaneous objection and failing to include the claim in his posttrial motion. The court further held that, even assuming an error occurred, the evidence at trial was not closely balanced, so the first prong of plain-error review did not apply.
Important correction:
The prior convictions admitted at trial were not described by the appellate court as eight violent felonies. The record identifies two 2015 convictions for theft or stealing and retail theft, followed by six 2017 convictions involving burglary and theft or stealing. The appeal concerned their use as impeachment evidence, not their use as substantive proof that Noland committed the murder.
Background of the Murder Case
The case arose from the shooting death of Jason Thomas in Granite City, Illinois, on January 8, 2020.
Thomas was in a relationship with Kristine Mills. Mills and Noland had recently begun a relationship, and the evidence showed that Mills and Thomas had been experiencing significant problems in their relationship.
On the night of the shooting, Mills and Noland went to the Granite City residence that Mills shared with Thomas. A shooting occurred inside the house, and Thomas was killed.
Noland was ultimately charged with first-degree murder.
What Happened Inside the House?
Thomas’s brother, Ronald Wilderness, testified that he drove Thomas home from work on the night of the shooting. Wilderness remained outside the residence and heard Thomas say something similar to “hold on, wait,” followed almost immediately by five or six gunshots.
Wilderness then saw Mills and a Black male leave the residence in Mills’s black Monte Carlo.
Police later located that vehicle in St. Louis. Noland was found at the motel where the vehicle was located, and officers recovered multiple firearms and a ski mask from the motel room.
Shooting
Multiple shots were fired inside the Granite City residence, killing Thomas.
Flight From the Scene
Mills and Noland left the house in a black Monte Carlo and traveled back toward St. Louis.
Firearms Recovered
Police recovered three firearms and a ski mask from the motel room associated with Noland and Mills.
Noland’s Self-Defense Theory
Noland admitted at trial that he shot Thomas. His defense was that the shooting was justified because he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself from imminent death or great bodily harm.
Noland testified that he and Mills had gone to the house because Mills wanted to retrieve her belongings. He said that he became concerned about the situation after they entered the residence.
Noland testified that he found a rifle in the house and carried it upstairs because he felt unsafe. He also had a .40-caliber handgun with him.
According to Noland, he heard a noise on the stairs, pulled his handgun, and then saw the barrel of another gun and a person’s shoulder. He testified that he fired because he was afraid and believed the person was armed.
Noland further testified that after firing his first shot, he heard a loud thud and then saw Thomas lying at the bottom of the stairs with a gun in his hand.
Noland continued shooting, then took the firearm from Thomas and left the residence with the other guns.
Self-Defense Is an Affirmative Defense in Illinois
Illinois law defines justifiable use of force as an affirmative defense. Under 720 ILCS 5/7-14, a defense based on the justified use of force is an affirmative defense.
However, it is important to understand what “affirmative defense” means in Illinois. It does not mean that a defendant who raises self-defense automatically assumes the ultimate burden of proving justification by a preponderance of the evidence.
Under 720 ILCS 5/3-2, the defendant may have to present some evidence supporting an affirmative defense when the State’s evidence does not itself raise the issue. Once the issue is raised, however, the State bears the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to that issue as well as the other elements of the offense.
Under 720 ILCS 5/7-1, deadly force is justified when a person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person, or the commission of a forcible felony.
Who Has the Burden?
A defendant generally must put forward some evidence sufficient to raise an affirmative defense when the State’s evidence has not already done so. Once a non-insanity affirmative defense such as self-defense is properly raised, however, Illinois law places the burden on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the issue raised by the affirmative defense.
The State’s Evidence Challenged Noland’s Version of Events
The prosecution presented physical and testimonial evidence that conflicted with important parts of Noland’s self-defense account.
A forensic pathologist testified that Thomas had been shot multiple times. One of the wounds was to the neck, and three of the wounds were fatal.
Police recovered numerous fired cartridge casings inside the residence. Ten were determined to have been fired from the .40-caliber handgun associated with Noland, two came from a 9-millimeter handgun, and one came from a .22-caliber firearm.
Officers did not find a firearm near Thomas’s body when they searched the residence.
Investigators also found no bullet holes, bullet fragments, or blood evidence upstairs, despite Noland’s testimony that his initial shot struck Thomas near the stairs while Thomas was standing and that Thomas then fell down a significant portion of the staircase.
Why this mattered on appeal:
The appellate court relied on the physical evidence and conflicting testimony to conclude that the State’s evidence was not closely balanced. That conclusion was central to the court’s rejection of Noland’s plain-error argument concerning the prior convictions.
Noland Also Gave Inconsistent Accounts
The State presented evidence that Noland did not give the same account of the shooting at every stage of the investigation.
After his arrest, Noland initially denied being with Mills in Granite City that night. He later gave police another version of the incident that differed from his testimony at trial.
At trial, Noland admitted that he had not initially told police the truth about being in Granite City.
The appellate court considered these inconsistencies when determining whether the evidence was closely balanced.
The Dispute Over Eight Prior Convictions
Before trial, Noland notified the court that he intended to assert self-defense.
The State then notified the defense that it intended to introduce certified copies of eight prior felony convictions if Noland testified.
Noland objected, arguing that the convictions could unfairly prejudice the jury and that their probative value was outweighed by the danger of misleading or inflaming the jury.
The trial court ruled that the State would be allowed to introduce the certified convictions if Noland testified, but it imposed restrictions on how the convictions could be discussed.
Specifically, Noland could acknowledge the offenses, locations, and dates, but he was not permitted to explain the circumstances surrounding them. The trial court also instructed that the State was not permitted to cross-examine him about the prior convictions unless necessary to correct an inaccurate presentation.
What Were the Eight Prior Convictions?
Noland testified about his criminal history during direct examination.
The record identified two convictions from September 2015 and six convictions from December 2017.
Two Convictions
The record identified one theft-or-stealing conviction and one retail-theft conviction.
Six Convictions
The record identified three burglary convictions and three theft-or-stealing convictions arising from the same general episode.
The appellate record therefore does not support describing the eight convictions as eight violent felonies. The State’s evidence consisted of prior theft-related and burglary convictions.
Why Were the Prior Convictions Relevant?
When a defendant testifies, prior convictions can potentially be used to attack the defendant’s credibility under Illinois law, subject to the applicable evidentiary limitations and the court’s balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice.
Illinois Rule of Evidence 609 addresses impeachment by evidence of a criminal conviction. It generally permits qualifying convictions to be used for the purpose of attacking a witness’s credibility, subject to the rule’s limitations, including the danger of unfair prejudice.
The important distinction is that impeachment evidence is offered to help the jury evaluate whether a witness is believable. It is not supposed to be treated as substantive evidence that the defendant committed the charged offense.
In Noland’s case, the trial judge specifically instructed the jury that the prior convictions could be considered only in evaluating Noland’s believability as a witness and could not be considered as evidence that he was guilty of the murder.
Impeachment Is Different From Propensity Evidence
The purpose of impeachment is to help the jury evaluate a witness’s credibility. The existence of a prior conviction does not by itself prove that the defendant committed the current charged offense. That distinction is why courts carefully regulate the use of prior-conviction evidence.
What Was the Actual Issue on Appeal?
Noland did not argue that the State could never use his prior convictions to impeach him.
Instead, he argued that the State improperly introduced certified copies of all eight convictions after he had already acknowledged the convictions during his testimony.
He argued that this unnecessarily emphasized his criminal history and created an unfair impression in front of the jury.
There was a procedural problem with that appellate argument, however: Noland had not made the required contemporaneous objection at trial or included the issue in his posttrial motion.
The Fifth District therefore determined that the issue had been forfeited.
What Is Plain-Error Review?
Illinois generally requires a defendant to preserve an alleged trial error by objecting when the error occurs and raising the issue in a posttrial motion.
Plain-error review is a narrow exception to that preservation requirement. As explained by the Fifth District, an unpreserved error may receive plain-error review when there is a clear or obvious error and either the evidence is so closely balanced that the error threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant or the error is so serious that it affected the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.
Noland relied on the first prong, arguing that the evidence was closely balanced.
First Prong
The evidence is so closely balanced that the error threatens to tip the scales of justice.
Second Prong
The error is so serious that it affects the fairness or integrity of the judicial process.
Why the Court Found the Evidence Was Not Closely Balanced
The Fifth District performed a qualitative, common-sense assessment of the entire trial record rather than looking only at the competing testimony concerning self-defense.
Noland argued that his trial was essentially a credibility contest between himself and Mills, the two people who had direct knowledge of what happened inside the house.
The court disagreed with that characterization.
The State had presented substantial physical evidence that corroborated portions of its account and contradicted significant portions of Noland’s testimony.
Shell Casings
Multiple fired casings were recovered and linked to the firearms found after the shooting.
Scene Evidence
Investigators found no firearm near Thomas and no bullet holes or blood evidence upstairs.
Forensic Evidence
The forensic evidence concerning the location and trajectories of the shots conflicted with parts of Noland’s account.
Inconsistent Statements
Noland provided different accounts of the events to police and at trial.
The Jury Heard Physical Evidence That Challenged Self-Defense
Noland testified that he initially shot Thomas while Thomas was standing near the top of the stairs.
The forensic evidence did not fully support that account. Thomas suffered a neck wound and then multiple additional fatal wounds, but investigators did not find the expected bullet holes, fragments, or blood evidence upstairs.
Investigators also found damage to floor tiles underneath the area where Thomas’s body was located. The forensic evidence was consistent with projectiles traveling through Thomas’s body and striking the floor.
The forensic pathologist also testified that Thomas was lying on a firm surface for most of the gunshots.
The appellate court concluded that this physical evidence undermined Noland’s account of the shooting and prevented the evidence from being considered closely balanced.
Noland Took the Gun From the Scene
Another fact the appellate court considered was what Noland did immediately after the shooting.
Noland testified that Thomas still had a gun in his hand after being shot. Noland said he kicked the firearm away from Thomas and then picked it up.
He then left the residence with multiple firearms and later hid the weapons inside the motel room. One handgun was placed inside the toilet tank, another firearm was also hidden there, and a rifle was placed underneath the bed.
The appellate court considered these actions when evaluating the totality of the evidence and determining whether the evidence was closely balanced.
The Court Also Considered Noland’s Conduct After the Shooting
The State introduced evidence that Noland put on a ski mask before leaving the residence and concealed the firearms after returning to St. Louis.
A recording also captured Noland making statements to Mills concerning what she should say and expressing concern about how the incident might affect him.
The appellate court considered this evidence as part of its overall assessment of the prosecution’s case.
The court ultimately concluded that the evidence was not so closely balanced that the alleged error involving the prior convictions threatened to tip the scales of justice.
Why Noland’s Appeal Failed
The Fifth District’s decision rested primarily on two procedural conclusions.
First, Noland forfeited his challenge to the introduction of the certified conviction records because he did not properly preserve the objection at trial and in his posttrial motion.
Second, the court concluded that plain-error review under the first prong did not apply because the evidence against Noland was not closely balanced.
The court expressly stated that it was not necessary to determine whether an evidentiary error actually occurred before concluding that the first prong of plain-error review was unavailable.
The Actual Holding
The Fifth District affirmed Noland’s first-degree murder conviction because the prior-conviction argument was forfeited and, even assuming an error, the trial evidence was not closely balanced enough to satisfy the first prong of plain-error review.
What Sentence Did Noland Receive?
The circuit court sentenced Noland to 35 years in prison for first-degree murder plus a 30-year firearm enhancement, for a total sentence of 65 years’ imprisonment.
The Fifth District affirmed the conviction and sentence in its May 17, 2023, decision.
The appellate record also reflects that the jury had been instructed on first-degree murder, second-degree murder based on an unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense, and self-defense.
Later Procedural History
Noland later pursued postconviction relief. In a 2025 Rule 23 order, the Fifth District affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of his postconviction petition after appellate counsel concluded there was no reasonably meritorious argument supporting the claims presented. The later case again referenced the 2023 direct appeal and its conclusion that the trial evidence was not closely balanced.
The later appellate order therefore did not disturb the 2023 judgment affirming Noland’s conviction.
Current status:
The 2023 direct appeal affirmed Noland’s conviction and sentence, and a subsequent 2025 postconviction appeal did not overturn that result.
What People v. Noland Means for Prior Convictions at Trial
People v. Noland illustrates the difference between evidence that is potentially admissible to impeach a testifying defendant and evidence that can be used as substantive proof of guilt.
When a defendant testifies, prior qualifying convictions can be relevant to the jury’s assessment of credibility, but Illinois evidentiary law places limits on how that information may be used. The jury must not treat prior convictions as proof that the defendant committed the charged crime simply because the defendant committed crimes in the past.
Noland also demonstrates the importance of preserving objections. Even where a defendant believes evidence was improperly admitted, failure to object at trial and raise the issue in a posttrial motion can substantially limit appellate review.
The appellate court may still consider an unpreserved issue under the narrow plain-error doctrine, but the requirements for doing so are demanding.
What People v. Noland Means for Self-Defense Cases
The case also illustrates the importance of distinguishing between raising an affirmative defense and proving that an affirmative defense applies.
A defendant who raises self-defense generally must present some evidence supporting the defense if the State’s evidence has not already raised the issue. Once the defense is properly raised, however, Illinois law places the ultimate burden on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the issue raised by the affirmative defense.
Under Illinois’s self-defense statute, the central question for deadly force is whether the defendant reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person, or the commission of a forcible felony.
In Noland’s case, the jury heard competing accounts concerning what happened on the stairs. The appellate court later determined that the physical evidence, forensic testimony, witness testimony, and Noland’s statements provided substantial evidence supporting the State’s version of events.
A Crucial Legal Distinction
Saying that self-defense is an “affirmative defense” does not mean that an Illinois criminal defendant has to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Illinois law distinguishes between the defendant’s initial burden to introduce evidence raising the defense and the State’s ultimate burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why Preserving an Evidentiary Objection Matters
Noland’s appeal also illustrates why objections must be made promptly during a criminal trial.
The appellate court noted that Noland acknowledged that he had not contemporaneously objected to the State’s introduction of the certified conviction records and had not included the issue in his posttrial motion.
Because of that forfeiture, the appellate court did not review the issue under the ordinary standard that would have applied had the alleged error been properly preserved.
Instead, Noland had to rely on plain-error review, which requires additional findings before an unpreserved error can result in relief.
A Note About This Decision
People v. Noland, 2023 IL App (5th) 210397-U was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23. The order expressly states that it is not precedential, except in the limited circumstances allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).
It is therefore appropriate to use the decision to explain what happened in Noland’s case and how the Fifth District applied the law to those facts, but it should not be presented as a precedential Illinois appellate opinion.
Talk to an Illinois Criminal Defense Attorney
Criminal cases involving murder charges, self-defense, prior convictions, and evidentiary disputes can raise complicated questions about what evidence the jury is permitted to hear and how that evidence may be used.
If a defendant testifies, prior convictions may become relevant to credibility, but the circumstances surrounding their admission and the way the evidence is presented can matter. Preserving objections at trial can also be critical to protecting issues for appellate review.
Patel Law, PC represents Illinois residents facing serious criminal charges. Our attorneys can review the charges, evidence, defenses, and procedural issues that may affect a criminal case.
Contact our Champaign criminal defense lawyers to discuss your case and the legal options available to you.
Sources
People v. Noland, 2023 IL App (5th) 210397-U — Official Illinois Appellate Court Opinion
People v. Noland, 2025 IL App (5th) 240959-U — Later Postconviction Appeal
Illinois Rules of Evidence — Rule 609, Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction
720 ILCS 5/3-2 — Affirmative Defense
720 ILCS 5/7-1 — Use of Force in Defense of Person
720 ILCS 5/7-14 — Affirmative Defense
