People v. Pacheco
143 N.E.3d 809
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant James A. Pacheco was charged with aggravated assault, attempted aggravated battery, aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude, criminal damage to property, and DUI after an incident in which Officer Stapleton discharged his service weapon at defendant’s vehicle during a traffic stop/pursuit; defendant pled guilty to criminal damage to property before trial.
- Key eyewitness, audio, and video evidence: surveillance audio/video captured commands to "stop the car," seven shots, and the vehicle leaving; video was grainy and did not clearly show pre-shooting positions; one officer (Zettergren) partially corroborated an increase in vehicle speed, while a witness (Kirk) said the vehicle did not move until after shots.
- At suppression hearing both officers testified they did not write police reports; they explained department practice of not having involved officers write reports after a shooting.
- Trial rulings at issue: (1) the court granted the State’s motion in limine barring defense questioning about officers’ failure to write reports; (2) the court prohibited defense counsel from asking whether Officer Stapleton could lose his job if the shooting were unjustified (and thus whether he had motive to lie); (3) during deliberations the jury asked to replay audio/video and the court played recordings in open courtroom with parties and judge present.
- Jury convicted Pacheco of aggravated assault, aggravated fleeing, and DUI; the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court played jury-requested audio/video in open courtroom during deliberations | No prejudice; procedure necessary because equipment not in jury room and State consented | Presence of parties and judge chilled deliberations and created presumption of prejudice | Replayed-in-open-court was plain error (structural/presumed prejudice); convictions reversed on this ground |
| Limitation on cross-examining Officer Stapleton about job consequences for unjustified shooting (motive to lie) | Questioning about employment consequences is impermissible speculation / improperly ties credibility to employment (relying on Adams) | Such cross-exam was proper to show bias/motive to testify falsely and Blue/Van Arsdall permit broad bias inquiry | Court violated confrontation clause by barring the inquiry; error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Limiting questioning officers about why no police reports were written (motion in limine) | Officers had no discretion under department policy; absence of report not evidence of bias | Failure to prepare reports (or the policy) is relevant to credibility and could support inference officers insulated themselves | Granting motion in limine was an abuse of discretion; exclusion prejudiced defendant; plain-error review excused forfeiture as evidence was closely balanced for aggravated assault |
| Alleged prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal closing (denigrating defense, shifting burden) | Prosecutor’s comments were proper argument that evidence supported guilt | Remarks denigrated defense and improperly shifted burden; prejudicial | Court did not resolve on merits because reversal was required on other grounds; appellate note that some statements (calling defense’s view a "fantasy," saying no evidence exonerated defendant) were improper and counsel was cautioned on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (prohibiting exclusion of cross-examination that would show witness bias; harmless-error standard when confrontation limited)
- People v. Blue, 205 Ill. 2d 1 (2001) (courts may limit cross-examination for traditional concerns but only after permitting sufficient cross to satisfy confrontation clause)
- People v. McDonald, 2016 IL 118882 (2016) (plain-error framework explaining two-prong test and application)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (discussing potential prejudice from jury-intrusion and presence of third parties during deliberations)
- People v. Adams, 2012 IL 111168 (2012) (prosecutor may not speculate that officers would "risk their jobs" by lying; limits on arguing credibility tied to officer status)
- People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81 (1998) (scope of cross-examination and trial-court discretion over limits on cross-examination)