People v. Patterson
2017 IL App (3d) 150062
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Defendant Brian D. Patterson was indicted for burglary of an Arby’s (entered Aug. 25, 2013, with intent to commit theft). Jury convicted; sentenced to 21 years as an enhanced Class X offender based on prior burglaries.
- Police recovered a cell phone from Patterson; about 100 recorded calls were downloaded, including four in the early morning of Aug. 25 showing conversation with codefendant/companion Angelique Brachle and sounds consistent with cutting/drilling.
- Search of defendant’s vehicle uncovered burglary tools (drill, grinding wheels, drill bits, lock-pick set), gloves, bags, and black clothing; Arby’s safe had two drilled holes and $400 missing.
- Defense contended a third‑party recording app (allegedly placed by the FBI) captured calls and sought suppression; defense witness who would testify about FBI involvement failed to appear and no subpoena to FBI agent was issued.
- Trial court denied suppression and proceeded; Brachle testified and later admitted pleading guilty and being on probation; jury convicted Patterson. Posttrial motions and appeals challenged denial of continuance, hearsay exclusion, certain jury instructions, and sentence severity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance of suppression hearing/trial | State: no continuance requested; defendant failed to present evidence tying FBI to phone app; motion untimely | Patterson: key witness unavailable; needed continuance to prove app placed by government; audio central to case | No abuse of discretion; defendant did not subpoena FBI or offer proof about app, motion properly denied |
| Hearsay (state-of-mind testimony about FBI) | State: issue forfeited; exclusion proper; no plain error | Patterson: excluded testimony would explain why he acted as he did and show belief FBI was listening | No plain error — evidence not closely balanced; recordings plus tools and safe damage supported conviction |
| Jury instructions (prior inconsistent statement & accomplice) | State: instructions properly given based on Brachle’s evasive answers and guilty plea/probation | Patterson: instructions improper and prejudicial | No abuse of discretion; evasive/acknowledged statements supported prior‑inconsistent instruction; probable cause to treat Brachle as accomplice supported accomplice‑witness instruction |
| Sentence (21 years) | State: within statutory range; trial court considered aggravation properly | Patterson: excessive; court relied on improper extra-record facts and failed to weigh mitigation | Sentence affirmed; within Class X range and court did not rely on impermissible outside facts |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113 (2009) (continuance review: abuse-of-discretion standard; no sua sponte duty to continue)
- People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600 (2014) (burden to support suppression requires evidence tying government to contested search or intrusion)
- People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52 (2001) (accomplice‑witness instruction test: probable cause that witness participated supports instruction)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (2005) (plain‑error review framework for forfeited issues)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (2009) (defendant bears burden under plain‑error; close‑balance standard explained)
- People v. Flores, 128 Ill. 2d 66 (1989) (prior statements may be inconsistent by evasion or silence; inconsistency determination for trial court)
- People v. Mohr, 228 Ill. 2d 53 (2008) (trial court’s instruction decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Dameron, 196 Ill. 2d 156 (2001) (sentencing decision based on private investigations or extra‑record facts violates due process)
- People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (2010) (trial courts have wide discretion in sentencing)