People v. Hernandez
2017 IL App (2d) 150731
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jose L. Hernandez was convicted after a bench trial of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance based on surveillance of a multi-vehicle movement and an observed drug handoff that produced eight bricks of heroin.
- Detectives surveilled Hernandez leaving a residence, driving a circuitous "heat run," parking away from the house, and later traveling in tandem with a car containing his father and brother to a Wal‑Mart where a handoff occurred.
- Officers stopped a red Hyundai after a man was seen carrying a black bag from the other vehicle; the bag contained heroin. Subsequent stops seized additional heroin from related vehicles.
- A canine alerted in Hernandez’s car and officers found an aftermarket hidden compartment in the Cruze he was driving; investigators also noted multiple cell phones among the arrestees.
- The trial court found the sequence of driving behavior, familial connection to the principals, vehicle positioning in the parking lot, heat‑run conduct, hidden compartment, and multiple phones supported that Hernandez knowingly acted as a lookout and was accountable for the delivery.
- Hernandez was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and appealed, arguing the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly participated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Hernandez knowingly participated/was accountable for the drug delivery | Surveillance (heat run, tandem driving, parking placement), family relationship to principals, hidden compartment, multiple phones, and observed delivery permit an inference Hernandez acted as a lookout and shared criminal intent | The conduct is susceptible to innocent explanations (lost, errands, no direct contact with handoff, no physical evidence tying him to drugs); similar circumstantial patterns do not equal proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find Hernandez knowingly participated/was accountable as a lookout; circumstantial and testimonial evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Perez, 189 Ill. 2d 254 (accountability; common criminal design and inferred intent)
- People v. McDonald, 168 Ill. 2d 420 (trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences and need not search out all innocent explanations)
- People v. Rodriguez‑Chavez, 405 Ill. App. 3d 872 (probable cause based on tandem travel and conduct; discussed but distinguished)
- People v. Ortiz, 355 Ill. App. 3d 1056 (tandem vehicles to delivery site supports inference of providing security/lookout)
- United States v. Tenorio, 360 F.3d 491 (heat runs as evidence of knowing participation in drug transactions)
- United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025 (surveillance/heat runs and communications support conspiracy convictions)
- People v. Gomez, 215 Ill. App. 3d 208 (circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction)