People v. Pacheco
2021 IL App (3d) 150880-B
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Defendant James Pacheco was charged with aggravated assault, attempted aggravated battery, aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude, criminal damage to property, and two counts of DUI; he pled guilty to criminal damage to property before trial.
- Officers Stapleton and Zettergren pursued defendant after reported property damage; Stapleton fired seven rounds as defendant’s vehicle moved and then defendant fled and later crashed; blood test showed BAC 0.183.
- At a suppression hearing both officers testified they did not write police reports because of department practice after officer-involved shootings; defense introduced a departmental manual excerpt suggesting ambiguity about who must prepare a report.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine precluding questions about the officers’ failure to write reports and barred cross-examination asking whether Stapleton feared losing his job if the shooting were unjustified; during deliberations the jury asked to replay security audio/video and the court played the recordings in open court with parties present.
- The jury convicted Pacheco of aggravated assault, aggravated fleeing, and DUI; the appellate court (on reconsideration after the Illinois Supreme Court’s Hollahan decision) held no error in the in-court replay but reversed and remanded for a new trial based on limitations on cross-examination and the in-limine ruling; some prosecutor remarks were flagged as improper but not disposed-of on the merits; presentence monetary credit conceded but rendered moot by reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Pacheco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Playing video/audio in courtroom during jury deliberations | Procedure was necessary (no jury-room equipment); no communication occurred; Hollahan controls | Playing in presence of parties/judge during deliberations intruded on jury secrecy and required reversal | No error — under Hollahan viewing in open courtroom without discussion is not "deliberations"; affirmed on this point |
| 2) Limiting cross-examination about Stapleton’s possible job-related motive to lie | Restriction proper under Adams and trial court discretion; questioning tied perjury to employment and is improper | Barring questioning about fear of losing job denied confrontation clause right to show witness bias/motive to lie | Violation of Sixth Amendment confrontation clause; exclusion was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — reversal warranted |
| 3) Granting State’s motion in limine barring questions about failure to write police reports | Department policy precluded officers from writing reports after shootings, so failure to write was not discretionary or indicative of bias | Policy ambiguous; failure to write reports and the policy itself were relevant impeachment bearing on credibility and possible institutional "cover-up" | Abuse of discretion — exclusion prejudiced defendant, evidence was closely balanced as to aggravated assault; reversal warranted |
| 4) Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal closing (denigrating defense, shifting burden) | Arguments were fair commentary on evidence and credibility | Remarks denigrated defense counsel, shifted burden, and overstated evidence | Court did not resolve merits because reversal granted on other grounds, but noted several remarks were improper and cautioned the State on remand |
| 5) Presentence monetary credit for custody time ($1,410) | State conceded entitlement | Defendant sought credit against fine | Concession acknowledged but moot because convictions reversed; not decided on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hollahan, 2020 IL 125091 (Ill. 2020) (viewing evidence in open courtroom without juror discussion does not constitute jury deliberations)
- People v. Blue, 205 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2001) (confrontation clause requires permitting sufficient cross-examination to expose witness bias)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (test for whether limiting cross-examination violates confrontation clause)
- People v. Adams, 2012 IL 111168 (Ill. 2012) (limits on argument that officers would risk careers by lying; prosecutor may not bolster credibility by status)
- People v. McDonald, 2016 IL 118882 (Ill. 2016) (plain-error doctrine standard and framework)
- People v. Mullins, 242 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2011) (harmless-error analysis for confrontation clause limitations)
- People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81 (Ill. 1998) (scope of cross-examination and trial-court discretion)