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, accused of entering without authority with intent to commit theft.
- Police recovered burglary tools and dark clothing from Patterson’s vehicle trunk; cell phone seizures yielded ~100 recorded calls, including four early-morning August 25 audio files that the State introduced at trial.
- Defense asserted a third-party recording application (allegedly placed by the FBI) captured calls; defense witnesses regarding FBI involvement failed to appear for pretrial suppression proceedings.
- Trial court denied the suppression motion as untimely and because the missing witnesses were not expected to prove the application issue; the case went to jury trial.
- Jury convicted Patterson of burglary; he received a Class X sentence of 21 years (based on prior burglary convictions) and appealed arguing: denial of continuance, exclusion of certain testimony (hearsay/state-of-mind), erroneous jury instructions, and excessive sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Patterson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance to pursue suppression evidence | No continuance required; defense failed to secure witnesses; motion untimely | Court should have continued suppression hearing/trial to obtain FBI witness and other proof about recording app | No abuse of discretion; defendant didn’t subpoena FBI or proffer evidence about app, so denial proper |
| Exclusion of testimony about what defendant was "told" (state of mind/hearsay) | Exclusion proper and forfeited; review at most for plain error | Testimony would explain why defendant feigned robbery for FBI; exclusion violated right to explain state of mind | Plain error not shown: evidence not closely balanced given audio plus tools and safe damage |
| Jury instructions (prior inconsistent statement and accomplice witness) | Instructions appropriate based on evasive answers and accomplice plea/testimony | Instructions had no application and undermined co-defendant’s testimony | No abuse of discretion: evasive police statements supported prior-inconsistent instruction; accomplice instruction supported by guilty plea and testimony |
| Sentence (21 years) | Within statutory range for Class X offender; court acted within discretion | Excessive; court considered improper factors and failed to weigh mitigation | No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory range and record does not show impermissible reliance on matters outside record |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113 (discusses standard for continuance and judicial economy)
- People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600 (defendant bears burden to present evidence on suppression issues)
- People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52 (accomplice-witness instruction and accessory/accountability test)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (plain-error framework for forfeited issues)
- People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539 (requirement to show clear or obvious error for plain error review)
- People v. Spicer, 379 Ill. App. 3d 441 (hearsay rule and exceptions)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (burden on defendant under plain error review)
- People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094 (commonsense analysis for whether evidence is closely balanced)
- People v. Flores, 128 Ill. 2d 66 (what constitutes a prior inconsistent statement)
- People v. Mohr, 228 Ill. 2d 53 (standard of review for jury instructions)
- People v. Dameron, 196 Ill. 2d 156 (prohibition on sentencing based on private investigations or facts outside the record)
- People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407 (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing)
- People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (trial court sentencing discretion)