People v. Wilson
2017 IL App (1st) 143183
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 27, 2011, Kelli O’Laughlin was found fatally stabbed in her home; a red knit hat containing a rock was recovered from the dining room.
- Officer Sachtleben recovered the hat; later he took a buccal swab from John Wilson after Wilson’s arrest on Nov. 2, 2011.
- Illinois State Police analysts swabbed and cut the hat’s interior; DNA testing produced a two-person profile with a major male profile that matched defendant; expert reported extremely low random-match probabilities.
- FBI Agent Raschke performed historical cell-site analysis (HSCA) using provider records and opined that defendant’s and victim’s phones were consistently in the same general vicinity during Oct. 27–29, 2011.
- The State proceeded on three theories of first-degree murder (intentional, knowing, felony murder); the court tendered a single general verdict form; jury convicted Wilson of murder, armed robbery, home invasion, and residential burglary.
- Defendant appealed arguing (1) insufficient foundation/chain of custody for DNA evidence and inadequate STR methodology foundation; (2) ineffective assistance for failing to request a Frye hearing for HSCA and for not objecting to the general verdict form. Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Wilson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hat/DNA (chain of custody) | Hat was identified by the recovering officer and remained in substantially same condition; foundation adequate | State failed to establish chain of custody for biological evidence; possible contamination by same officer who later took buccal swab | Forfeiture of objection; on plain-error review court found adequate identification/foundation (no complete breakdown); admission affirmed |
| Foundation for STR/DNA opinion | Expert explained PCR and testing and provided statistics; underlying basis is subject to cross-examination under Ill. R. Evid. 705 | Expert did not explain STR methodology on direct, so foundation and Confrontation rights impaired | Objection forfeited; Wilson/Williams/Ill. R. Evid. 705 govern — basis can be developed on cross-examination; admission affirmed |
| Admissibility of HSCA and need for Frye hearing | HSCA (plotting cell-site records) is not a scientific test requiring Frye; testimony admissible without Frye | HSCA is science-based and required Frye reliability hearing | Trial counsel not ineffective for failing to seek Frye because HSCA testimony not subject to Frye; no relief |
| Failure to object to single general first-degree murder verdict form | No reversible error where defense did not request separate forms; tactical decision not to seek separation | Under Smith, separate verdict forms should be required where different findings affect sentencing; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Smith limited to cases where court refused a defense request for separate forms; here no such denial and choice likely tactical; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455 (chain-of-custody plain-error standard)
- People v. Smith, 233 Ill. 2d 1 (2009) (requirement for separate verdict forms when requested and sentencing consequences differ)
- Wilson v. Clark, 84 Ill. 2d 186 (expert may give opinion without prior disclosure of underlying facts; basis can be developed on cross-examination)
- People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125 (endorsing Wilson rule in Illinois)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (scientific evidence admissibility standard)
- People v. Lach, 302 Ill. App. 3d 587 (biological evidence may require chain-of-custody)
- People v. Winters, 97 Ill. App. 3d 288 (blood vial case illustrating chain-of-custody concerns)