People v. Herring
123 N.E.3d 1
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- On November 26, 2010, Stephen Peters and CPD officer Michael Flisk were shot and killed in an alley after Stephen had reported a burglary of his mother’s garage and was waiting for police; witnesses heard two sets of shots and saw the bodies.
- Items from the Mustang burglary were later found in garbage cans abandoned a few houses away; a latent fingerprint on a rearview mirror bracket was identified as Herring’s.
- Several acquaintances and relatives of Timothy Herring told police that Herring admitted shooting two people, described disposing of a gun and clothes, and had braids/cut hair the same day; some initially lied to police and later gave recorded statements.
- Cell-phone records and cell-site location information placed Herring’s phone in the vicinity of the crime; the prosecution introduced call/text logs and tower-location analysis.
- The jury convicted Herring of two counts of first-degree murder and burglary; he received a mandatory natural-life sentence (statutorily required because he killed two victims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corpus delicti / Sufficiency of evidence | State: corpus delicti (murder) and defendant’s guilt shown by independent evidence (shooting, bodies, fingerprint, phone data, witnesses) | Herring: convictions rest solely on his out-of-court admissions; corpus delicti not independently proven | Court: corpus delicti proven; evidence (forensic, phone, witness admissions) sufficient for a rational jury to convict |
| Admissibility of hearsay (Stephen’s statements; 911 call) | State: Stephen’s statements admissible as state-of-mind; 911 call admissible as excited utterance | Herring: statements and 911 tape were improper hearsay / prejudicial | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion — both exceptions apply and probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Double hearsay / prior inconsistent statements (Menzies→Ebony→police) | State: prior inconsistent grand jury statement admissible as substantive; testimony cumulative of Menzies | Herring: admission of Ebony’s recounting of Menzies’s report is impermissible double hearsay | Court: any double-hearsay error was harmless because Menzies had already testified and Ebony’s evidence was cumulative |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing/opening) | State: remarks were proper argument on evidence and inferences; limited improper remarks were corrected by court | Herring: prosecutor appealed to emotion, attacked defense as “disgusting”/“nuts,” improperly suggested witnesses feared defendant | Court: remarks viewed in context; no reversible misconduct—sustained objections and limited role of comments meant no material prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance re: fingerprint foundation and cell-location data | State: counsel cross-examined fingerprint examiner and strategically declined exclusion; cell-location evidence was weak and cumulative | Herring: counsel should have objected to foundation for fingerprint and sought suppression of location data under Carpenter | Court: no deficient performance on fingerprint (strategy, weight not admissibility); even if Carpenter suppression merited, no prejudice because location data was non-dispositive |
| Constitutionality of mandatory natural-life sentence for 19-year-old | State: Eighth Amendment protections for juveniles do not extend past 18; sentence lawful | Herring: mandatory sentence prevents consideration of youth as mitigating factor | Court: federal Eighth Amendment claims fail (defendant was over 18); as-applied Illinois challenge not preserved or developed for review |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lara, 2012 IL 112370 (explains corpus delicti requires independent proof of crime)
- People v. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52 (state-of-mind hearsay exception requirements)
- People v. Sutton, 233 Ill. 2d 89 (standards for excited utterance/spontaneous declaration)
- People v. Sangster, 2014 IL App (1st) 113457 (prior inconsistent statement and hearsay discussion)
- People v. Maldonado, 402 Ill. App. 3d 411 (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (cell-site location information may constitute a search requiring a warrant)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (Eighth Amendment protection for juvenile offenders)
- People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932 (Illinois guidance on preserved as-applied constitutional claims)