People v. Flores
2014 IL App (1st) 121786
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- On March 19, 2007, two victims were shot in a gang-related incident; Victor Casillas died and Lionel Medina was wounded. Oscar Flores was later charged with murder, attempted murder, and aggravated battery with a firearm.
- Flores was interrogated twice: a lengthy custodial May 2007 interrogation (during which he requested counsel and later gave statements) and a July 14, 2007 interrogation (during which he made inculpatory admissions and a videotaped confession to an ASA).
- The trial court suppressed the May statements (finding Flores asked for a lawyer and detectives reinitiated questioning) but denied suppression of the July statements, ruling Flores did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent and that the July statements were voluntary.
- At trial the State admitted two MySpace photographs to explain the course of the police investigation (how Flores became a suspect); captions on the photos and other MySpace material were contested. Identification evidence included witness testimony and a MySpace-based identification by a witness who viewed the photos prior to police involvement.
- The jury convicted Flores; he received an aggregate sentence of 80 years. On appeal Flores challenged suppression rulings, admission of MySpace materials, and counsel performance related to mug-shot/database testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether July 14 statements should be suppressed as violating Flores’s right to remain silent (and right to counsel) | State: Flores did not clearly invoke his right to remain silent; he continued engaging and answered questions; statements were voluntary | Flores: After Miranda warnings he said "Not really. No." and later "ain't gonna say nothing about nothing," unequivocally invoking right to remain silent; questioning should have ceased | Court: Reversed — Flores unequivocally invoked right to remain silent and police failed to scrupulously honor it; July statements (including ASA confession) inadmissible; remand for new trial |
| Whether May statements could be admitted to explain why Flores confessed later | State: May interrogation relevant to explaining why defendant later confessed; course of events matters | Flores: May statements were obtained after he requested counsel and should be suppressed; also hearsay if offered at trial | Trial court had suppressed May statements; appellate court did not decide admissibility on retrial (remanded) |
| Admissibility/authentication of MySpace photos and captions | State: Photos admissible to show police investigation and how Flores was identified; relevance limited to investigatory course | Flores: Photographs lack proper foundation/authentication; captions are prejudicial and attributable to Flores without proof | Court: Photos admissible for investigatory-course purpose but prejudicial captions must be redacted because State could not prove authorship; allowed limited admission on retrial |
| Evidence that Flores’s photo was in police database / mug shot testimony; ineffective assistance claim | State: Database evidence shows investigative steps linking Flores to suspect pool | Flores: Such evidence improperly informs jury of unrelated criminal history; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Court: Advised that mug shot/database evidence tending to show unrelated criminal conduct should be avoided on retrial; did not resolve ineffective-assistance claim on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings; invocation of Fifth Amendment right to silence must be respected)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (factors for assessing whether a later interrogation after invocation/suspension is permissible)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (postrequest responses to interrogation are relevant only to waiver, not to the clarity of the initial request for counsel)
- Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1984) (postrequest statements cannot be used to undermine clarity of initial invocation; subsequent statements bear on waiver)
- People v. R.C., 108 Ill. 2d 349 (Ill. 1985) (police must scrupulously honor a juvenile's invocation of the right to remain silent; continued questioning after invocation impermissible)
- People v. Hernandez, 362 Ill. App. 3d 779 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (defendant’s “No, not no more” was a clear invocation of the right to remain silent; questioning thereafter violated Miranda)
- People v. Brown, 171 Ill. App. 3d 993 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (a simple unambiguous "No" to whether defendant wished to talk sufficed as invocation; interrogation should have ceased)
- People v. Nelson, 193 Ill. 2d 216 (Ill. 2000) (mug-shot evidence may explain investigative steps but should not be used to inform the jury of unrelated prior crimes)