People v. Starks
13 N.E.3d 1
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- On Nov. 3, 2009 Robert Shine was shot and killed; three eyewitnesses at the scene could not initially name the shooter.
- The victim’s mother received an anonymous voicemail identifying a shooter nicknamed "Turd," which police associated with Brandon Starks; photo arrays followed and two witnesses identified Starks shortly after the event.
- Starks was arrested on Jan. 6, 2010 after police observed him running outside an apartment building; officers searched a 3rd-floor apartment and found three handguns on a kitchen counter.
- Ballistics later matched a .45 Glock recovered from that apartment to the bullets/cartridge cases from Shine’s murder; DNA testing of the gun showed a mixture from at least three contributors and Starks could not be excluded as a contributor.
- At trial the jury convicted Starks of first degree murder; trial errors raised on appeal included admission of evidence about multiple guns, exclusion of eyewitness-identification expert testimony, lineup/counsel issues, and Rule 431(b) voir dire errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Eyewitness IDs and ballistics/DNA support conviction | No physical link to victim; DNA only shows possible contributor; IDs unreliable and delayed | Evidence sufficient: jurors could credit the three eyewitness IDs (one strongly) despite lack of direct motive or strong physical link |
| Admission of other weapons evidence | Weapons found during arrest-search are proper details of arrest and relevant | Weapons had no connection to Starks or the murder; State never proved possession or nexus | Reversible error: admission of evidence about multiple unrelated weapons was irrelevant and, under plain-error first prong, prejudicial in a closely balanced case; conviction reversed and remanded |
| Expert testimony on eyewitness ID | Not argued by State | Defense sought to admit expert on memory, stress, weapon focus; trial court summarily denied | Trial court abused discretion by categorically denying without case-specific inquiry; on remand defense’s request must be seriously considered |
| Right to counsel / lineup suppression | Lineups were lawful; sixth amendment not triggered pre-judicial proceedings | Third lineup occurred without counsel notification; ID suppression required | Denial of suppression affirmed: sixth amendment had not attached before initial appearance/arraignment under prevailing law; Rothgery not applied to investigative alert here |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (factors for assessing eyewitness identification reliability)
- Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (when Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (delay between crime and ID relevant to ID reliability)
- State v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (modernized, science-informed approach to eyewitness ID procedures)
- People v. Pikes, 2013 IL 115171 (admissibility of evidence assessed under ordinary relevancy when not shown to be other-crimes evidence)