People v. Miller
2017 IL App (1st) 143779
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Undercover officer Altamirano bought a small heroin package from Melvin Miller using prerecorded police bills; surveillance officer Clark observed from 50–75 feet.
- Supervisor Dakuras recorded serial numbers and later approached Miller, checked Miller’s cash, and matched three bills to the prerecorded funds.
- Dakuras testified he asked Miller for his name and birth date; defense objected when similar testimony and the source of a photo array were mentioned.
- Dakuras prepared a six-photo array that Altamirano later used to identify Miller; parties stipulated the package contained 0.4 grams of heroin.
- After a jury convicted Miller of delivery of a controlled substance, the court polled jurors; one juror hesitated but repeatedly said “that’s now my verdict.”
- Defense also sought a prior-inconsistent-statement impeachment instruction; the trial court denied it for lack of impeachment "perfection." Miller was sentenced to 12 years and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury polling equivocation | Poll was proper; juror ultimately affirmed verdict | Trial court failed to conduct meaningful inquiry; urging further deliberations was coercive | No reversible error: juror’s repeated “now my verdict” showed assent; no prejudice or unanimity defect |
| Alleged discovery violation (Rule 412) — nondisclosure of defendant’s statement (name/DOB) | No Rule 412 violation; reports effectively disclosed that defendant was identified | State failed to disclose Miller’s oral identifying statement; prejudiced defense and warranted mistrial | Forfeiture issues aside, any nondisclosure was not prejudicial given strong, cumulative identification evidence; any error cured by court’s striking rulings/instructions |
| Motion for mistrial based on disclosure | State provided reports containing identifying info; no surprise | Failure to disclose the source (that Miller gave name/DOB) warranted mistrial | Denial of mistrial affirmed: evidence not closely balanced; Weaver factors not met |
| Denial of IPI Criminal 2d No. 3.11 (prior inconsistent statement/impeachment by omission) | No need for the instruction; jury already instructed on assessing witness credibility | Trial court should have given instruction because police report omitted that Miller gave name/DOB | Denial not an abuse of discretion: report wording did not establish an omission meeting impeachment-by-omission standard; jury already had appropriate credibility instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wheat, 383 Ill. App. 3d 234 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (purpose and procedures for jury polling; timing issues)
- People v. Herron, 30 Ill. App. 3d 788 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975) (trial court discretion in polling; juror assent factual determination)
- People v. Kellogg, 77 Ill. 2d 524 (Ill. 1979) (court must ascertain juror intent when hesitancy appears)
- People v. Bennett, 154 Ill. App. 3d 469 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (distinguishing equivocal polling answers)
- People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478 (Ill. 2009) (limited application of Sprinkle; forfeiture doctrine and judge-conduct claims)
- People v. Sprinkle, 27 Ill. 2d 398 (Ill. 1963) (relaxing forfeiture rule for certain trial-judge misconduct claims)
- People v. Kitch, 239 Ill. 2d 452 (Ill. 2011) (plain-error doctrine framework)
- People v. Cisewski, 118 Ill. 2d 163 (Ill. 1987) (scope of Rule 412; prejudice inquiry for undisclosed statements)
- People v. Weaver, 92 Ill. 2d 545 (Ill. 1982) (factors for prejudice from discovery violations)
- People v. Luckett, 273 Ill. App. 3d 1023 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (prior inconsistent-statement instruction not required where jury received equivalent credibility guidance)