People v. Fillyaw
948 N.E.2d 1116
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Lasondra Shaw was murdered and two others were seriously injured when two gunmen attacked Lasondra's apartment around midnight on June 29, 2007.
- Witness Deshae R., a minor, saw two men flee and identified the defendants from photo arrays at trial.
- Powell gave a handwritten statement to Detective Giamberduca alleging pre-offense gun purchases by Fillyaw and a post-offense admission by Fillyaw about kicking in a door and shooting.
- The State admitted Powell's statement as substantive evidence under 115-10.1; portions were redacted, but the admission of the incriminating portion remained.
- Fillyaw challenged ineffective assistance for not objecting to Powell's statement as substantive and for not suppressing Deshae R.'s identification; Parker challenged Bruton-type impact and other issues.
- The trial court admitted Deshae R.'s Allendale records in camera and later limited cross-examination; on appeal, the court remanded for further in-camera review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| EI: Was counsel ineffective for admitting Powell's statement as substantive evidence | Fillyaw: error; Powell statement improperly admitted | Fillyaw: ineffective assistance for failure to object properly | Yes; admission improper; reversal for Fillyaw |
| Bruton issue: Did Powell's statement implicating Parker violate Bruton when joined trial | Parker: admission harmed due to joint trial, no proper limiting instruction | Parker: severance wasn't granted; error prejudicial | Bruton error; reversal and remand for Parker |
| Impact of Deshae R.'s mental-health records on cross-examination | Parker/Fillyaw: broader access to records allowed; relevant to credibility | records should be more narrowly limited; restrict medication/diagnosis details | Remand for in-camera review and potential redaction; protective orders permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (codefendant's confession at joint trial violates due process)
- People v. Duncan, 124 Ill.2d 400 (Ill. 1988) (limitations on admitting codefendant statements in joint trials; need for redaction and proper instructions)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (joint-trial confessions redacted to eliminate references to codefendants may be admissible)
- People v. McCarter, 385 Ill.App.3d 919 (Ill. App. 2008) (hearsay statements of third parties to a testifying witness are inadmissible as substantive evidence)
- People v. Morgason, 311 Ill.App.3d 1005 (Ill. App. 2000) (section 115-10.1 limitations on admissibility of out-of-court statements)
- People v. Coleman, 187 Ill.App.3d 541 (Ill. App. 1989) (personal-knowledge requirement for 115-10.1(c)(2) substantiation)