People v. Trice
2017 IL App (1st) 152090
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On November 11, 2013, undercover Officer Michael Clemons purchased two small packages from codefendant Aleric Veal following a short hand‑to‑hand transaction observed by surveillance Officer Sal DiFranco; Clemons maintained custody of the packages and sent them to the Illinois State Police lab as inventory no. 13044995.
- At a September 2014 bench trial (defendant waived jury), DiFranco and Clemons testified about the surveillance and sale; Clemons described the recovered items as "tan/brownish rock‑like/suspect raw heroin."
- The parties stipulated that forensic scientist Jason George would testify he received inventory no. 13044995, opened two items, tested and found heroin totaling 1.1 grams, that the testing equipment was functioning properly, and that a chain of custody was maintained; the stipulation was admitted into the record.
- Defense argued at trial and in posttrial motions that the stipulation conflicted with officer testimony (plastic bags vs. tinfoil; rock/raw vs. powder), alleging a breakdown in chain of custody and possible tampering or substitution.
- The trial court found the officers credible, denied the new‑trial motion, and sentenced Sammy Trice to six years in IDOC; errors in the mittimus and fines/fees order were identified on appeal (mittimus listed manufacture/delivery; fines/fees failed to apply correct pretrial credit).
- On appeal the State conceded the clerical errors: the fines/fees order should reflect a $1,600 (320 days × $5) pretrial credit (total owed $954) and the mittimus should reflect a single count of delivery (1–15 g heroin). The appellate court affirmed the conviction but ordered those corrections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stipulation and trial record established an adequate chain of custody for the tested drug evidence | Stipulation and officer testimony together show a continuous chain (same inventory number, chemist would testify chain maintained); defendant waived objections by stipulating | Stipulation conflicts with officer testimony (plastic bags vs tinfoil; rock/raw vs powder), showing a complete breakdown in chain of custody and possible tampering/substitution | Affirmed: No reversible breakdown. Defendant stipulated to chemist testimony and waived objections; State made prima facie case and defendant failed to show actual tampering; invited‑error and forfeiture principles apply |
| Whether the trial court should have refused the parties’ stipulation admitting the lab result | Stipulation was agreed and admissible; refusing sua sponte was not warranted | Trial court should not have accepted stipulation because it eliminated opportunity to test chain of custody | Held against defendant: no authority to require sua sponte refusal; point forfeited and invited error |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for agreeing to the stipulation | State: counsel’s decisions were trial strategy; stipulation was consistent with record | Counsel rendered deficient assistance by waiving cross‑examination of chemist and agreeing to stipulation | Rejected: counsel actually elicited the "rock/raw" versus "powder" disparity and argued it; conduct attributable to strategy, no prejudice shown |
| Whether clerical errors in mittimus and fines/fees must be corrected | State concedes errors and requests correction | Defendant seeks correction (proper pretrial credit and accurate offense on mittimus) | Court ordered correction: fines/fees reduced to reflect $1,600 credit (total owed $954); mittimus amended to show delivery of controlled substance (1–15 g heroin) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lozman v. Putnam, 379 Ill. App. 3d 807 (Illinois App. Ct.) (a party waives a point by failing to argue it)
- People v. Ward, 215 Ill. 2d 317 (Illinois 2005) (issues unbriefed or unsupported by authority are forfeited)
- People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455 (Illinois 2005) (chain‑of‑custody and stipulation principles; stipulation can waive challenge)
- People v. Alsup, 241 Ill. 2d 266 (Illinois 2011) (chain‑of‑custody burden and proof against tampering)
- People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368 (Illinois 2004) (invited error doctrine: party cannot seek a course and then complain on appeal)
- People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309 (Illinois 2003) (same invited error principle)