People v. Brand
2021 IL 125945
Ill.2021Background
- On November 3, 2015, after his ex‑girlfriend Anita Shannon ended their relationship, defendant Crosetti Brand allegedly forced entry into her apartment, assaulted Shannon, threatened her 15‑year‑old son, took Shannon’s car keys and fled in her 2014 Kia Sedona.
- Shannon received a November 8 Facebook Messenger message from an account using the name "Masetti Meech" (an alias Brand previously used with her) directing her to where she could recover her vehicle; she retrieved the car using a spare key. The November 8 message itself was deleted; a November 21 message from the same account (photograph admitted) contained threats naming streets and people only close associates would know.
- Police arrested Brand on November 24; a custodial search produced a personal property bag containing Shannon’s car keys, photographs of which were admitted over objection.
- Brand was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated domestic battery, home invasion (treated as section 19‑6(a)(2)), and possession of a stolen or converted motor vehicle; he received concurrent terms of 16 years (home invasion) and 3 years (possession).
- On appeal the convictions and sentence were affirmed, but the appellate court remanded for a preliminary Krankel hearing on Brand’s pro se ineffective‑assistance claim; the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave and reviewed two issues: (1) admissibility/authentication of the Facebook Messenger messages and (2) sufficiency of the evidence for possession of a stolen or converted motor vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Brand's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of Facebook Messenger messages | Victim’s testimony that Brand used the alias "Masetti Meech," plus distinctive content (location of the car and threats revealing private address/age info), provided sufficient circumstantial authentication | Messages were not properly authenticated; account could be spoofed/hacked and the State needed proof Brand controlled the account or actually sent the messages | Admitted: Court held trial court did not abuse its discretion — circumstantial evidence (repeated use of the alias, unique information in messages known to Brand, and victim identification) sufficed under Rule 901 principles |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of a stolen or converted motor vehicle (625 ILCS 5/4‑103(a)(1)) | Only knowledge that the vehicle was stolen/converted was required; evidence (keys taken, car gone several days, FB message from alias locating the car, keys found on Brand) showed Brand knowingly deprived victim of the car | Argued State failed to prove intent to permanently deprive (i.e., theft rather than temporary taking) | Affirmed: Court held the evidence supports that Brand knowingly and wrongfully deprived Shannon of the vehicle for several days, satisfying possession of a stolen or converted vehicle as charged |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (1984) (trial court inquiry required when defendant raises posttrial ineffective‑assistance claim)
- People v. Woods, 214 Ill.2d 455 (2005) (preservation/forfeiture rule for evidentiary objections and posttrial motions)
- People v. Caffey, 205 Ill.2d 52 (2001) (authentication via distinctive characteristics/circumstantial evidence)
- People v. Towns, 157 Ill.2d 90 (1993) (historical principles for documentary authentication)
- People v. Davison, 233 Ill.2d 30 (2009) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Becker, 239 Ill.2d 215 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Cramer, 85 Ill.2d 92 (1981) (distinguished regarding intent/ftn of conversion vs. theft)
- United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (context‑dependent authentication of internet/social media content)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (factors for prima facie authentication of social‑media posts)