People v. McCallum
144 N.E.3d 491
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- In September 2009 two men (Charles Black and Kevin McVay) were shot to death outside the home of Tatanisha Banks; Black made a 911 call while dying that identified Randy McCallum as the shooter.
- Investigators recovered 9mm casings, a cigarette butt near Black’s car that contained McCallum’s DNA, and a Winchester rifle nearby; eyewitness Tierra gave statements (some inconsistent) later identifying McCallum as the shooter.
- McCallum was arrested in December 2009 and gave two video-recorded postarrest interviews (about 35 and 18 minutes); portions of both were redacted and both redacted videos were played at trial.
- While jailed during an earlier trial, McCallum made a recorded phone call to his mother and sister in which he discussed a possible self-defense story; that recording was admitted at the second trial.
- McCallum was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder; he appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the redacted recording of the second postarrest interview (relying on People v. Hardimon). The Fifth District affirmed, holding the admission proper (and harmless if error).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the redacted recording of the second postarrest interview was admissible | Recording was relevant to show defendant’s demeanor, reactions to Black’s 911 call, and to place the interviews in context; redacted to remove overtly prejudicial legal commentary | Recording was largely cumulative or nonprobative and contained investigators’ opinions and accusatory comments that were unfairly prejudicial (citing Hardimon) | Admission was within the court’s discretion: interview was a continuation of the first, contained probative statements and demeanor changes, and redactions removed the worst portions; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether investigators’ accusatory comments required exclusion under Rule 403 / Hardimon | Brief accusatory comments were relevant to show effect on defendant and were not overly prejudicial after redaction | The interviews’ accusatorial portions had no probative value and were highly prejudicial (arguing Hardimon controlling) | Court distinguished Hardimon: here the second interview altered defendant’s demeanor and produced probative statements; unlike Hardimon, the contested portions were brief and contextual, so admissible |
| If admission was erroneous, was the error harmless? | Other independent, powerful evidence (Black’s 911 dying declaration/recording, Tierra’s ID statements, cigarette butt DNA, jail phone call) established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Admission was prejudicial and might have swayed the jury | Any error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the compelling, corroborative evidence; affirm conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings)
- People v. Walker, 211 Ill. 2d 317 (2004) (trial court may exclude relevant evidence when prejudicial effect substantially outweighs probative value)
- People v. Hardimon, 2017 IL App (3d) 120772 (appellate) (admission of lengthy accusatorial interrogation portions can be highly prejudicial and justify redaction/new trial)
- People v. Dunbar, 2018 IL App (3d) 150674 (appellate) (distinguishing Hardimon where redaction strategy and interview context differ)
- People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278 (2010) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary errors)
- People v. Hatchett, 397 Ill. App. 3d 495 (2009) (dying declaration can be sufficient to support conviction)