People v. Garner
2016 IL App (1st) 141583
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Patrice Garner was convicted of first-degree murder for the January 2006 death of her six‑year‑old daughter, Kierra, after both were found having ingested amitriptyline; Kierra’s death was ruled a homicide.
- State’s theory: Garner overdosed herself and Kierra after her husband, Grady, said he wanted a divorce; Grady testified about the phone calls informing Garner their marriage was over.
- Defense retained Dr. Bruce Frumkin, who concluded Garner was not feigning amnesia and, with high psychological certainty, lacked personality traits making her likely to kill herself and her child; the trial court excluded that opinion as impermissible character evidence under the law then in effect.
- The State elicited testimony from paramedic Jack Daley recounting Garner’s mother (Oden) saying things like “she killed the baby,” and the court allowed Grady’s testimony about the divorce calls over Garner’s claim of marital‑communications privilege, citing the child‑interest exception.
- Garner testified she did not remember the calls or events; hospital staff and detectives testified to inculpatory statements Garner allegedly made in the hospital. Garner was convicted and sentenced to 35 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of Dr. Frumkin’s opinion (character/expert testimony) | State: Opinion was inadmissible character evidence and, at time of ruling, expert opinion of personal character was barred. | Garner: Expert opinion was admissible (made to a high degree of psychological certainty) and would rebut motive evidence. | Court: No reversible error — exclusion matched governing law at ruling; Rule 405(a) post‑dated ruling and Garner didn’t seek reconsideration; no plain‑error or Strickland prejudice. |
| 2. Admitting Grady’s testimony about phone calls (marital communications privilege) | State: Exception applies where interests of children are directly involved; child’s interests are directly involved in a murder prosecution. | Garner: Exception doesn't apply because the calls did not concern the child; content must relate to the exception. | Court: Child‑interest exception triggered by nature of prosecution (murder of child); admission proper. |
| 3. Admitting Daley’s testimony recounting Oden’s statements (hearsay/excited utterance) | State: Oden’s hysterical statements were admissible as excited utterances. | Garner: Statements were hearsay and inadmissible; motion to bar should have been granted. | Court: Oden did not personally witness the act (administering pills); statements not admissible as excited utterances; but admission was harmless — evidence not closely balanced and not structural error. |
| 4. Ineffective assistance claims (failure to preserve/apply for relief) | State: Even if counsel erred, the evidence against Garner was strong and no prejudice shown. | Garner: Counsel should have preserved issues and sought reconsideration under Rule 405(a); failure was deficient. | Court: Strickland not met — performance not prejudicial given strong inculpatory evidence; ineffective‑assistance claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (procedural forfeiture/posttrial motion rule)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (plain‑error doctrine framework)
- People v. Eveans, 277 Ill. App. 3d 36 (child‑interest exception applies when child is murdered; State stands in for child’s interests)
- People v. Randall, 363 Ill. App. 3d 1124 (rule then prohibiting character evidence by expert opinion)
- People v. Hill, 60 Ill. App. 2d 239 (declaring excited‑utterance exception requires declarant personally observed matter)
- People v. Poland, 22 Ill. 2d 175 (inference of personal observation may suffice for excited‑utterance admission)