People v. Jacobs
2016 IL App (1st) 133881
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- In January 2013 James Fox’s 2005 Kia was stolen from his Peoria home during a burglary; police later arrested Brian Lamb in connection with that burglary (police reports indicated a confession).
- On January 20, 2013, Chicago police stopped and arrested Eric Jacobs driving that Kia; Jacobs was charged with possession of a stolen motor vehicle (PSMV).
- The principal contested issue at trial was whether Jacobs knew the vehicle was stolen; Jacobs testified he had rented the car for $40 from a man he knew as “Brian.”
- Jason Fox (the owner’s son) testified he had been searching pawn shops for his mother’s stolen jewelry, saw the Kia in a pawn-shop parking lot on January 19, 2013, and identified Jacobs in court as the man he saw enter/drive the car.
- The State introduced testimony about the burglary, stolen jewelry, and Jason’s pawn-shop search; the defense sought to introduce evidence that Lamb had been arrested for the burglary but the trial court excluded that evidence as hearsay.
- Jacobs was convicted by a jury of PSMV and sentenced to nine years; on appeal the court vacated and remanded for a new trial because of improper admission of other-crimes evidence and exclusion of evidence showing Lamb’s arrest.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Jacobs’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendant knew car was stolen | Evidence (exclusive possession, inconsistent statements, flight/behavior) supported inference of guilty knowledge | Jacobs said he rented car from "Brian" and lacked knowledge it was stolen | Conviction supported: evidence sufficient for jury to infer knowledge |
| Admission of Jason Fox’s testimony linking defendant to pawn shop and stolen jewelry (other-crimes evidence) | Testimony was admissible as part of the continuing narrative and to explain why Jason was at pawn shops and to identify the car/driver | Testimony impermissibly suggested Jacobs participated in the burglary (uncharged crime) and was highly prejudicial | Abuse of discretion to admit references to stolen jewelry/pawn-shop search; probative value minimal and prejudice substantial — reversal and new trial required |
| Exclusion of evidence that Brian Lamb was arrested for the burglary (right to present defense) | Excluding testimony about Lamb’s arrest was proper because proffered confession evidence would be hearsay | Evidence of Lamb’s arrest was non-hearsay event testimony that would have rebutted implication Jacobs committed the burglary | Exclusion was erroneous; the fact of Lamb’s arrest was non-hearsay and its exclusion materially prejudiced Jacobs |
| Admissibility of Jason’s in-court identification (single-photo exposure) | State did not introduce the photo ID but allowed in-court ID; jury could assess reliability | In-court ID tainted by an earlier single-photo exposure and police suggestion; should be excluded unless independent basis shown | Court did not analyze adequacy of independent basis; on retrial court should apply McTush/Biggers factors before admitting an in-court ID |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lindgren, 79 Ill. 2d 129 (Supreme Court of Illinois) (erroneous admission of other-crimes evidence carries high risk of prejudice)
- People v. McTush, 81 Ill. 2d 513 (Supreme Court of Illinois) (framework for determining whether an in-court ID is tainted by suggestive pretrial ID)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. Supreme Court) (factors to assess reliability of identifications)
- People v. Gordon, 204 Ill. App. 3d 123 (Ill. App. Ct.) (comparison PSMV knowledge issue)
- People v. Abdullah, 220 Ill. App. 3d 687 (Ill. App. Ct.) (inference of knowledge from exclusive possession of a stolen vehicle)