People v. White
2017 IL App (1st) 142358
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Undercover officer Steven Leveille conducted a controlled buy in daylight on June 25, 2013; he testified a man (identified at trial as Derrick White) wearing a sleeveless tank top handed him two baggies of heroin in exchange for $20 prerecorded funds. The recovered substance tested positive for heroin (0.7 g).
- Surveillance officer Edward Legenza observed the same man in the alley making hand-to-hand transactions and alerted other officers; neither officer recalled seeing tattoos on the seller at the time.
- A photo array prepared after the buy led Leveille to identify White about three hours after the transaction; White was arrested two days later with no narcotics or prerecorded funds on him at arrest.
- At the bench trial White sought to show tattoos on his arms and requested an in-court reenactment with the purchasing officer to demonstrate whether the tattoos would have been visible during the buy; the court limited the demonstration (required palm down presentation) and excluded evidence of a left-arm tattoo as irrelevant.
- The court convicted White of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced him to 10 years. On appeal the majority upheld sufficiency of the identification evidence but vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial court denied White his right to present a complete defense by restricting tattoo evidence and preventing an officer reenactment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identification evidence | Police had clear, unobstructed, daylight view; prompt photo-array ID; testimony was credible | Misidentification supported by officers’ failure to note tattoos/scar and suggestive photo array | Evidence was sufficient to support conviction when viewed in favor of the State |
| Admissibility / demonstration of tattoo evidence | Court’s limitation was proper and demonstration unnecessary; defendant could have testified | Tattoo visibility was probative; reenactment with officer necessary to test identification | Trial court abused discretion by barring relevant demonstration and excluding left-arm tattoo; error denied right to present a complete defense; new trial required |
| Photo-array suggestiveness | Array was admissible; defects go to weight, not admissibility | Array emphasized defendant’s photo and used only general criteria, making ID unreliable | Trial court’s prior ruling admitting array stands; array’s imperfections affect evidentiary weight but do not render ID inadmissible |
| Request for reassignment of judge on remand | No showing court won’t follow law; reassignment unwarranted | Trial judge showed hostility and prejudice; different judge should preside | Declined to reassign; no indication judge will not follow law on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness identification)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (procedural defects in identification affect weight, not admissibility)
- Slim v. People, 127 Ill. 2d 302 (1989) (use of Biggers factors in Illinois to evaluate identifications)
- People v. Harp, 193 Ill. App. 3d 838 (1990) (criteria and discretion for permitting courtroom demonstrations)