People v. Patterson
2017 IL App (3d) 150062
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Brian D. Patterson was indicted for burglary of an Arby’s on August 25, 2013; jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment (Class X range due to prior burglary convictions).
- Police recovered tools and items from defendant’s vehicle consistent with burglary and downloaded ~100 recorded calls from his cellphone; four calls were from the early morning of August 25, 2013.
- Defense contended a third‑party recording application (allegedly placed by the FBI) captured calls and sought suppression; defense witnesses who might support the FBI‑interception theory failed to appear at the pretrial hearing.
- Trial court denied the suppression motion and proceeded to trial; defendant testified the recordings were conversations with his girlfriend and that they were fabricated for the benefit of the FBI; girlfriend pled guilty to the Arby’s burglary and testified at trial.
- Jury convicted; defendant challenged (1) denial of a continuance, (2) exclusion of certain testimony as hearsay, (3) two jury instructions given (prior inconsistent statement and accomplice), and (4) excessiveness of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance denial | Trial court properly managed delays; defendant didn’t subpoena FBI agent | Court abused discretion by refusing continuance when defense witness unavailable | No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to secure witness and motion untimely |
| Hearsay exclusion | Exclusion was proper; defendant forfeited issue | Testimony was admissible as state‑of‑mind exception to explain why defendant acted as he did | No plain error: evidence not closely balanced and no showing of clear error |
| Jury instruction (prior inconsistent stmt.) | Instruction fitting given witness’s evasive testimony to police | Instruction unsupported because no proof of prior inconsistent statement | No abuse of discretion; witness’s police statements were evasive/inconsistent, so instruction proper |
| Jury instruction (accomplice) | Evidence supported accomplice‑witness instruction given witness’s guilty plea and admissions | Instruction improperly undermined witness credibility | No abuse of discretion; probable cause existed to treat her as accomplice |
| Sentence (21 years) | Sentence within Class X statutory range and court considered proper factors | 21 years excessive; court improperly weighed planning as aggravator and failed to consider mitigation | Affirmed: court did not abuse sentencing discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113 (2009) (standard for reviewing continuance decisions)
- People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600 (2014) (defendant bears burden on suppression motions)
- People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52 (2002) (accomplice‑witness instruction and related standards)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (2005) (plain‑error review framework)
- People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539 (2010) (plain‑error first‑step requirement)
- People v. Spicer, 379 Ill. App. 3d 441 (2008) (hearsay and state‑of‑mind exception principles)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (2009) (closely balanced evidence requirement for plain error)
- People v. Flores, 128 Ill. 2d 66 (1989) (what constitutes a prior inconsistent statement)
- People v. Mohr, 228 Ill. 2d 53 (2008) (standard of review for jury instructions)
- People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407 (2005) (deference to sentencing court)
- People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (2010) (trial court’s wide sentencing discretion)