People v. Kent
2017 IL App (2d) 140917
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On May 6, 2013, Donmarquis Jackson was shot and killed in the driveway of 1428 Nelson Boulevard; Lorenzo Kent Jr. was convicted of first‑degree murder and given an extended 55‑year sentence for personally discharging the firearm.
- Key eyewitnesses were two 14‑year‑olds (Genesis Burrell and Wesley) who placed Kent near the victim and described his conduct before and at the time of the shooting; other evidence included prior physical altercation between Kent and Jackson and discovery of .22‑caliber ammunition in an apartment where Kent was seen.
- The State sought to admit (1) a screenshot of a Facebook post from a profile named “Lorenzo Luckii Santos” stating “its my way or the highway…..leave em dead n his driveway,” (2) computer‑generated cell‑phone billing records for a phone registered to a teenager, Mikayla, and (3) testimony recounting the victim’s phone numbers from a detective’s report.
- At a pretrial hearing the court conditionally admitted the Facebook screenshot subject to foundation; at trial Detective Beets testified he found the profile and post but offered no ISP/IP records or other evidence tying the account to Kent; the post was used in closing as an admission.
- The defense objected on authentication and hearsay grounds and moved for a new trial after conviction; on appeal Kent argued insufficiency of the evidence, erroneous admission of the Facebook post, and improper admission of phone records and hearsay about Jackson’s phone number.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Kent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Eyewitness testimony, prior altercation, bullets/ammo found, and circumstantial evidence suffice to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Witnesses were unreliable and scene layout/lighting made eyewitness identification impossible; testimony was inconsistent | Affirmed that, viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, evidence was sufficient to support conviction |
| Authentication of Facebook post | The profile name, a photo resembling Kent, post content referencing a driveway killing, and detective’s discovery provided enough circumstantial authentication | State failed to link the account or post to Kent (no IP/ISP records, no admission, no proof Kent used Facebook); admission was prejudicial | Reversed: trial court abused its discretion admitting the screenshot; authentication was insufficient and error was not harmless |
| Computer‑generated phone records foundation | Certified phone records and custodian’s certificate established admissibility as business/computer records | State failed to show the computer/equipment was standard and operating properly and did not sufficiently authenticate the records as computer‑generated | Court noted foundational defects; held any error as to these records was potentially harmless here but must be corrected on retrial |
| Hearsay re: victim’s phone numbers (Detective’s testimony) | Detective’s testimony identifying numbers was offered to explain subpoenas/records | Testimony was hearsay — recounting what Doris told the detective to prove the numbers — lacking an exception or proper foundation | Trial court erred in admitting that testimony as hearsay; State must properly lay foundation on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (web‑page/profile printouts require sufficient proof tying the page to the defendant; mere name/photo may be inadequate)
- People v. Downin, 357 Ill. App. 3d 193 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (an e‑mail can be authenticated circumstantially where contents show knowledge limited to a small group and prior usage of the address is established)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (survey of social‑media authentication approaches; lists examples of what ‘‘something more’’ may include)
- People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill.2d 274 (Ill. 2004) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review: Jackson v. Virginia standard applied)
- People v. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d 352 (Ill. 2003) (State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a verdict would be the same absent evidentiary error to show harmlessness)