*1 tion by refusing to admit at trial hospitaliza- evidence of the minor’s custody tion parents, while of his foster we would find no revers- respondent ible error as the father not prejudiced by this denial. above, As discussed presented adjudica- unrebutted evidence tory hearing overwhelmingly supported the finding trial court’s neglect. Moreover, medical clearly record below establishes that post-foster-care evidence S.K.’s hospitalization already came into through testimony such, evidence of Dr. Glick. As dowe not see regarding how further evidence hospitalization S.K.’s could af- have fected the outcome the adjudicatory hearing.
As to the respondent mother’s claim that the court should have sua sponte post-foster-care admitted the evidence of S.K’s hospitaliza- tion, guardian both State ad litem contend that she has waived this failing properly preserve issue for appellate it review. noted, agree. We As respondent record below indicates that the proffered any mother never post-foster-care evidence of S.K.’s hospitalization, argued any opinion nor or rendered whatsoever with regard to this adjudicatory hearing. matter at the she As such has purposes for appeal. waived issue of this However, aside, waiver even if court obligated had been admit sponte, already this evidence sua reasons discussed with regard claim, the respondent father’s we find no error. reversible reasons, the foregoing
For we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Affirmed. SMITH, P.J., McNULTY,J.,
FITZGERALD concur. ILLINOIS, THE Plaintiff-Appellee, THE PEOPLE OF STATE OF DENNIS, Defendant-Appellant. KEBRON R.
Second District No. 2 - 04-1161
Opinion April filed *2 KAPALA,J., specially concurring. *3 Johnson, and Appellate
Thomas A. Lilien Linda A. both of State Office, Elgin, appellant. Defender’s of for (Martin Waller, Attorney, Moltz, Waukegan
Michael J. State’s of of P Office, Attorneys Appellate counsel), State’s Prosecutor’s of and Kristine A. Karlin, People. for Prospect, Mt. the opinion delivered the of the court:
JUSTICE HUTCHINSON trial, defendant, Dennis, Following Kebron R. jury a was found (720 1(a)(1) 4(a), guilty attempted first-degree murder ILCS 9— 5/8 — (720 (West 2002)) battery aggravated with a firearm ILCS and 5/12— 4.2(a)(1) (West 2002)) years’ imprisonment. and to 21 sentenced (1) appeal: on that the trial court raises three contentions (2) statements; suppress it his that the erred when denied motion seeking court when it denied his motion in limine trial erred reputation propensity introduce of the victim’s and for evidence (3) aggressiveness; and and that he is entitled to two ad- violence sentence, against spent for the time he days’ ditional credit his sentence, and and pretrial custody. vacate defendant’s conviction We remand the for a new trial. we case charged by 10, 2003, indictment September defendant was On (720 ILCS attempted first-degree murder
with offenses 5/8— 2002)) 1(a)(1) (West battery a firearm aggravated with 4(a), and 9— (West 2002)). 4.2(a)(1) that, (720 alleged The indictment ILCS 5/12 — victim, Curtis 2003, injured and 24, defendant shot August on Mitchell, handgun. with a suppress the state- 3, 2003, filed a
On motion October Specifically, argued after his arrest. ments he made to Therese being treated at St. that he made while statements involuntary receipt to the prior and were made Hospital were argued that the statements warnings. Defendant also Waukegan sup- have later made at the station should been fruit of the tree.” pressed poisonous “the 2003, 29, defense of On defendant raised the affirmative October statement, evidence, by presented way of his written self-defense tending support theory. that May 21, hearing on defen-
On trial court conducted hearing, At court suppress dant’s motion statements. the trial judicial testimony Waukegan police detective took notice George given pretrial hearing. Valko had at an earlier Valko had testi- that, approximately p.m., fied on 11:50 he heard August dispatch “possible radio that there were shots fired” 905 Baldwin responded call, radio Waukegan. As Valko he heard another in a dispatch identifying possible suspect subject” as a “a male black Cadillac,” leaving “red scene. Valko testified he observed Cadillac, off, lights alley red its in an behind a Jewel store. Valko began driving on pulled alley testified that Cadillac out of Bay lights Green Road. Valko his and siren and called activated vehicle, backup. following the the driver While he was Valko observed something his left stick arm out driver’s-side window throw along shiny top parkway over into the marsh-like vehicle Bay Bay unpopulated Green Road is Green Road. Valko testified that arrived, they area. backup Valko testified after officers driver, felony conducted a traffic the vehicle. Valko ordered the stop of defendant, vehicle, step identified as back step out of toward officers, ground. and kneel on Defendant was arrested bleeding leg, handcuffed. Valko testified that defendant was from *4 transport hospital. an to the and ambulance was called to hospital, After was taken Valko remained officers, searching object scene for two with other for the hours was thrown from defendant’s vehicle. Valko testified that object. never recovered the testimony that judicial
The trial also notice of the court took Waukegan police officer given Donald Paulsen had at an pretrial earlier hearing. that, Paulsen had testified August on shortly before midnight, duty patrol was on as a officer and evidence technician. that, Paulsen testified when he arrived at the scene of defendant’s traffic stop, defendant was still seated in observed, his vehicle. Paulsen distance, “from a large amount of blood” on upper hip thigh area. Paulsen pooling also observed ground blood on the after defendant knelt at request. Valko’s that, Paulsen testified after ambulance, defendant left in the he searched defendant’s vehicle. He observed a black ski mask on the floorboard behind the driver’s seat ripped, bloody T-shirt in between the two front seats. Paulsen searched defendant’s vehicle after it had been towed to sta- tion. He recovered appeared what to be a single .22- or .25-caliber bul- let from under the driver’s seat.
Waukegan police Larry detective Holman testified that he had been a years detective for nine and that he investigator was the lead of the shooting that occurred at 905 Baldwin in Waukegan August on 2003. Holman testified at the time he left the station just midnight after begin investigation, his he knew that both the victim and defendant gunshot had sustained being wounds and were transported Hospital to St. Therese for treatment. Holman testified partner, Waukegan he and his Timothy Bucking- detective ham, arrived at the approximately time, at 1 a.m. At this being victim injuries treated for his yet defendant had not ar- rived.
Holman further testified that defendant emergency arrived at the room approximately a.m. 1:30 Holman testified that he entered defendant’s curtained-off area “as soon as” the nurses left. Holman testified that defendant “very quiet.” calm and Defendant was underwear, clothed only in his appeared he had what be a bul- let wound “through-and-through” upper thigh. The injury was not bandaged, and defendant bleeding was still from the wound. Holman testified that he repeatedly asked defendant if he knew the location of gun shooting. used Defendant did respond ques- tions. Holman gun was,” continued to ask defendant “where the gun,” “what did he do happened with the and “did he know what gun.” responded, Defendant “I don’t know where the is.” Holman asked defendant “several more times” about the location of gun. Holman testified visibly upset that defendant then became and began cry. okay, Holman asked defendant “if he was what was wrong.” responded that the victim used to be his friend they and that had been coworkers Comcast. Defendant then told Holman that he apartment had been to the victim’s earlier that *5 life, his “ruined his had that the victim stated evening. Defendant sleep- that the victim was related Defendant soul, marriage.” going he he was worried wife and that ing with defendant’s everything was saying that Defendant ended his children. to lose that he asked testified here.” Holman from “going to be downhill told before a nurse gun the location more about defendant once treatment. defendant’s could continue leave so that she Holman to he did minutes and approximately for defendant Holman was with testimony, During Holman’s warnings. Miranda give defendant Miranda warn- given had not been defendant stipulated that the State questioning. ings prior to Holman’s from that, defendant’s release following testified
Holman further in an placed station transported to the hospital, he was 25, 2003. August a.m. on 4:30 approximately room at interrogation room, Hol- interrogation Buckingham entered Holman and When to use drink or needed anything if he needed defendant man asked Holman testi- anything. need said he did not bathroom. Defendant warnings preprinted a Miranda from defendant the fied that he read agreed speak with signed the form and that defendant form asked defendant specifically he testify did not as to what them. Holman interview. during the out a state- did not want to write testified that defendant
Holman sign. him to ment, type let Holman statement agreed but he description of the events following The statement contained through knew one another Defendant and the victim August suspected his wife and had socialized outside of work. work “life was Defendant’s having an affair. and the victim were Defendant was wor- problems. shambles,” having he marital as was Defendant went of his children. losing custody ried about and to “see what building the victim to confront apartment victim’s a mask Defendant had kill the victim. plan he did not up,” but came run- the victim defendant when surprised The victim gun. knife.” Defendant big “a silver building with ning apartment out of the defendant with “coming at” as the victim was shot the victim and shot defendant took silver knife. victim and drove off. building apartment leg. Defendant ran out defendant knowing that cross-examination, denied Holman On Hol- hospital. him in the spoke he custody at the time was in and with other officers several spoken that he had with man admitted hospital. Holman in the speaking prior the victim with black ski defendant had a him that that the victim told also admitted him. Holman had shot person who defendant was mask and that speak if he could personnel ask medical that he did not admitted defendant and that did not know if defendant had received medica- prior questioned tion to the time he him. Holman also admitted that it him appeared to that defendant’s wounds had not been fully treated. that, point testified at some during questioning, affirmatively said that he did not know where the gun was. Holman admitted despite response, this question continued to defendant. Holman denied basing defendant’s written statement on the information he received from the victim and defendant in the hospital. typing He denied prior also the statement to defendant’s ar- rival at the station. Holman testified that the information contained in defendant’s written statement was derived from the interrogation police station, after defendant had received warnings.
The State next called Buckingham. Buckingham testified that midnight 25, 2003, sometime after on August he and Holman were investigate shooting called to a at Waukegan. 905 Baldwin in Bucking- ham testified that he was aware that defendant had been taken into custody before he and Holman hospital arrived at the at approximately They 12:20 a.m. spoke approximately with the victim for 30 to 45 Buckingham minutes. testified that near the end of the interview with victim, speak Holman left to Buckingham with defendant. testified that he did participate not in the interview of defendant.
Buckingham that, testified sometime 2 and between 4:30 a.m. at station, police he Holman had a conversation in which Hol- man indicated that he was unable to learn the location of the shooting involved in the during his interview of defendant at the hospital. Buckingham any denied that Holman discussed other state- by during ments made defendant the hospital Buckingham interview. that, a.m., further testified approximately 4:30 he and Holman interrogated police defendant at the station and that Holman read warnings preprinted from a form. Defendant stated that rights, signed he understood his and he form. waiver Buckingham agreed testified that defendant to speak with them and interrogation that the lasted less than one hour. He testified that Hol- typed summary man of defendant’s statements and read the typewritten Buckingham statement to defendant. testified that signing defendant said the statement was correct before it. cross-examination, Buckingham that, during On admitted police interrogation, questions station Holman asked defendant relat- ing the hospital. Specifically, statements made earlier at Hol- questions man asked defendant had ruined about how victim marriage. questions defendant’s life and Holman also asked defendant sleeping about the victim with defendant’s wife and about defendant’s Buckingham testified his children. custody regarding concerns by discussed previously been subjects had not that those they nor had been discussed interrogation, during station that, Buckingham testified hospital. the victim the the interview of the informa- had obtained time, did know where Holman at the “my life is defendant never said Buckingham also testified that tion. station, though at the even during questioning in shambles” by prepared statement included the written that statement was Holman. the trial court denied parties,
Following arguments found The trial court suppress motion to statements. inter- hospital was a custodial although defendant’s interview at safety public as the warnings required, were not rogation, Miranda question- found that all of Holman’s exception applied. The trial court the loca- hospital necessary to determine ing of defendant at the that defendant’s statements gun. The trial court also found tion coercion, voluntarily but were product at the were not the station, the gave at the given. As to the statements defendant rights his Miranda voluntarily trial court that defendant waived found voluntarily. weighing In given freely and that the statements were stated, “I do believe the offic- credibility, the trial court witnesses’ station testimony,” ers’ and found that the statements made at anyway “in connected or tainted” statements were not Therefore, ruled that all of defendant’s hospital. the trial court statements were admissible at trial. 7, 2004, in limine which he July
On defendant filed motion regarding the victim’s “conduct sought to introduce evidence at trial Specifically, aggressiveness.” reputation violence *7 (1) question the and the victim’s wife sought to: victim against the complaint by filed the wife regarding a domestic violence (2) and victim, prosecuted; question not victim but which was had other testify physical to altercations the victim himself as (3) reputa- Comcast; testify and himself as victim’s employees at aggressive and individual. among tion his coworkers as violent be offered to show argued that all of the evidence would defendant’s state aggressor, the initial and show the victim was he needed to mind, i.e., reasonably believed that that defendant attack with a deadly against force the victim’s defend himself with knife. denied the mo- the trial court
Following arguments parties, of evidence in to the introduction part. respect tion limine With reputation victim’s regarding complaint violence and the the domestic coworkers, ruled, “I find the trial court do not among for violence his *** *** any legal ground allowing type this of evidence. I will not permitted by allow evidence that is not any [sic] rules of evidence or permitted by any case The trial ruling law.” court reserved its on respect the motion with to the introduction of defendant’s own testimony knowledge as to his and state mind as to the victim’s propensity aggressiveness. for violence and The trial court reserved its ruling provide so that defense counsel could it support- with case law ing the motion. The judge case was transferred to another and no prior further order was entered on the motion trial. August Waukegan
Trial on commenced 2004. officer Santiago Lopez working patrolman testified that he was as a on the evening August Lopez responding testified that he was report shooting of a at 905 Baldwin when he observed a red Cadil- Lopez lac turn off of Baldwin and onto reported Grand Avenue. proceeded vehicle’s location and shooting. Lopez the scene of the testified that reported by the victim that he had been shot defendant. Lopez observed a in the victim’s wound lower chest another wound upper arrived, Lopez the victim’s stomach. After an ambulance searched outside of the a knife apartment. He located under a bush sliding glass apartment. close to the doors of victim’s testimony Holman’s trial substantially was consistent with his testimony suppression hearing except following at the for the state- upset ments. Holman testified when defendant became at the began cry, wrong, “[w]hat asked defendant responded if okay.” he was Holman testified that defendant that the my victim “ruined life.” Holman then asked defendant “what he testified, by meant said ‘ruined [the victim] that.” Holman “Defendant life, soul, my my my marriage’ say.” and that’s all he would Paulsen, presented testimony Buckingham,
The State also substantially testimony and Valko. Their consistent with hearing suppress. given at the on defendant’s motion watching The victim testified that he and his wife were a movie apartment approximately p.m. their 11:30 when he heard a sound patio that caused him to look toward the door. He saw a shadow move thought that he told his across the door. The victim testified wife car, going and that he was might there be “some kids” out just parked around.” The car was “outside to take look victim’s that he patio apartment. door to his The victim testified outside parking out to the lot. The victim pocketknife retrieved his went end “shaking profusely” that some bushes were south testified lot, in that direction. The victim testi- parking and he walked shirt, mask, gloves, a wearing a black black fied that someone black The victim jumped out of the bushes. pants, black and black shoes *8 that, apartment, testified as he turned to run back he was into standing shot. The victim testified that the shooter on a 4-foot wall, victim, approximately away 10 to 12 feet time he from fired the shot. victim testified that the masked individual climbed began running off the wall and after him.
The victim further testified that the shooter tackled him to the ground patio apartment. near the door to his The victim testified that dropped began get gun. During his knife and struggling struggle, ripped gunman recognized the victim the mask off of the and defendant. dropped gun The victim testified that defendant and that the grabbed gun. upper thigh victim He shot defendant in the him, area. The victim testified collapsed top that defendant then on and dislodged from grasp. his Defendant retrieved the gun.
The victim testified that apart- defendant ordered him into the gunpoint. ment at The victim testified that he apart- then ran to his ment, knocked, yelled open his wife to the door and to call the police. The victim testified that defendant tried way to force his into apartment. pushed The victim defendant out of doorway shut and locked the According victim, door. to the the entire alterca- tion lasted less than 10 minutes.
The victim further testified that he had known defendant for more than years two as a coworker and they good had a working relationship. The victim testified that he and defendant went another birthday coworker’s party together 9, 2003, on August they occasionally went out for beer. The victim denied that he called defendant to come apartment to his August on 2003. The victim testified that he never anyone saw defendant or else at Com- cast wear a in mask the course of his or her work. cross-examination,
On the victim testified that he took the knife outside with him because thought may there abe threat to his safety, not may because there be children around his car. The victim pulled denied that he defendant’s shirt over during his head their struggles. that, August 2003,
Defendant testified he worked at Comcast as a lineman. He skin testified that he has a pigmentation disorder and that he often wore a mask to protect working. himself while Defendant testified previously that he had working worn a mask while with the victim. Defendant testified that the had mask been his vehicle on numerous occasions when the victim had also been in the vehicle. wearing Defendant denied evening August the mask on the kept He testified that he handgun .22-caliber in his toolbox because he had past been attacked in the and because he often worked dangerous areas. at Com- that he had worked with the victim testified shooting. He testified that he and the years prior cast for 21/2 the victim had been to together often had lunch
victim Saturday prior He on the home no less than 15 times. testified *9 parking lot after shooting, he and the victim were the Comcast the him speak him he with and the victim told that wanted work testified that the victim would over the weekend. Defendant sometime subject was, just nothing “[fit’s that we need to not tell him what the called him on his cel- Defendant testified that the victim say here.” 24, 2003, August evening Sunday, late in the on telephone lular him. apartment speak to his asked defendant to come gun the that he tucked his into Defendant further testified complex, got apartment the victim’s pants his when he waistband of guy because he “knew that this dangerous it a area and because was defendant, then asked he was.” Defense counsel basically was who victim’s] any knowledge [the have evening you to that did “Prior answered, “Yes, I The did.” acts?” Defendant propensity for violent Defense objection. the objected and the trial court sustained State as he was what his intentions were then asked defendant counsel the trial court objected The walking up apartment. to the State asked defendant what he was objection. the Defense counsel sustained trial court objected and the thinking at that moment. State objection. the sustained that, up foyer he to the door further testified as walked
Defendant waiting building, the victim was leading apartment the victim’s into door, the got close to the the As defendant just for him inside door. knife, right the cutting lunged at him with the ran out and victim that, a testified within Defendant his shirt near the shoulder. sleeve of so his head second, pulled him and his shirt over grabbed the victim repeatedly. him began punching not see. The victim that he could his while shirt gun his and shot grabbed that he Defendant testified he shot at the time testified his head. Defendant was still over to kill him. Defendant trying was that the victim gun, the he believed the During struggle. the victim continued that he and testified him in the and shot gun got a hold of struggle, the victim struggle the victim continued that he and leg. Defendant testified reaching gun the or victim from stop tried to the and that defendant Defendant testified knife, ground. the were both on the which to his and ran vehicle. away from the victim eventually got he the driving himself to that he was testified Defendant he Defendant testified following him. started when be- he was the vehicle while out of the window cigarette a lit threw of the vehicle throwing gun out denied police. He by the ing followed and testified that the last time he saw the it was on window ground apartment complex. cross-examination, that he kept defendant testified
On more than an before he was treated stop scene of traffic hour transported why he paramedics hospital. or When asked evening mask signed statement that said that he had a on the question, defendant that he officers the state- testified told entirely signed ment and that it because he was accurate just to end. interrogation exhausted wanted 27, 2004, attempted August jury guilty On found defendant and aggravated battery murder with a firearm. On November 2004, following sentencing ag- court hearing, merged the trial gravated battery into attempted conviction murder conviction years’ timely ap- imprisonment. sentenced defendant to 21 Defendant peals. first contends that the trial erred when it denied court suppress motion statements he made to in the
emergency room and at the argues station. Defendant trial improperly gave court determined that the statements he *10 hospital public safety exception were admissible under the to Miranda. argues Defendant further that at hospital his statements the were inadmissible were they prior because obtained to his receiving Miranda warnings and they because were involuntarily given. otherwise Specifi- cally, argues that his hospital statements were obtained after he had suffered trauma and lost a large had amount of argues blood. Defendant at that the time made he the statements at hospital, the he receiving was medicated and gunshot treatment for a wound, and that made inquiry prior no into his medical state hospital interrogation. additionally argues that, since obtained, his statements at hospital illegally the were the statements he made at later the station should have suppressed also been the poisonous under “fruit of the tree” doctrine. of ruling
Review a trial court’s
to suppress
on motion
involves a
question
Pitman,
502,
mixed
fact.
of law and
See
211 Ill.
People v.
2d
(2004).
ruling,
512
In
reviewing
suppression
we consider
both
suppression hearing
evidence submitted at the
and the evidence
(2005).
Kueton,
822,
submitted at
v.
App.
trial.
362 Ill.
3d
People
830
Findings of
upheld
historical fact made
the trial court will be
on
findings
against
weight
review unless such
are
manifest
of
Pitman,
however,
undertake,
evidence.
211
2d at
our
Ill.
512. We do
presented,
own assessment of the
issues
we
facts
relation to the
own
regard
draw our
conclusions with
the relief that
be
should
granted. Pitman,
Therefore,
42
Pitman,
question
grant
suppress.
ultimate
whether
motion
Const., 10, I, amend. and article section the Illinois Constitution *** (Ill. §10) 1970, I, guarantee art. be person “[n]o Const. shall In compelled any against criminal case to be a witness himself.” 436, Arizona, 475-77, 694, 724-25, 16 2d 86 Miranda v. 384 U.S. L. Ed. 1602, (1966), the Supreme S. Ct. 1628-29 United States Court extended against fifth privilege amendment self-incrimination to custodial interrogation required that a defendant be warned that he or she silent, right attorney, has right has the to remain or she an him in a given may against and that statement be used or her any Miranda, is Under taken from a defendant court law. statement demonstrates, by a in the State’s case unless the State inadmissible evidence, given the defendant was first preponderance of intel warnings knowing and that the made a ligent privilege against People waiver of his or her self-incrimination. Cook, 105, (2004); Laliberte, Ill. App. Ill. 3d v. People v. (1993). 3d App.
However, Court has enunciated limited Supreme the United States is warning requirement. exception One exceptions to Miranda safety. public face an threat to New York where immediate 655-57, 550, 556-58, 2d Quarles, 81 L. Ed. 104 S. Ct. 467 U.S. (1984). instance, may ask questions 2631-32 In that officers safety prior or to issu- necessary public to secure the themselves 655-57, warnings. Quarles, 81 L. Ed. at ing Miranda 467 U.S. 556-58, 104 Ct. at 2631-32. S. question,
In State present there is no and the stop custody since the traffic stipulated, that defendant had been warnings midnight and that had not received Miranda just before approximately 1:30 to the statements he made at the prior trial rul and the court’s disagree a.m. We with the State’s contention Quarles safety exception from ing public excused him at the prior speaking giving warnings defendant Miranda 556-58, 104 S. 655-57, 81 L. Ed. 2d at hospital. Quarles, 467 U.S. at *11 at Ct. 2631-32. rapist, who had Quarles, police apprehended suspected a
In
the
652,
Quarles,
81
467 U.S. at
gun,
supermarket.
armed
a
in a
been
search, an of-
554,
During a pat-down
2d
104 Ct. at 2629.
L. Ed.
at
S.
empty
an
shoulder
wearing
that
defendant was
ficer discovered
the
the
the location of
the defendant about
holster. The officer asked
warnings.
responded
defendant
Miranda
The
weapon, prior
giving
the
nearby
carton. The Court held
gun
empty
in a
that the
43
of-
despite
were
the
gun
statement
the
admissible
defendant’s
warnings prior
questioning
the
provide
ficer’s failure to
659,
gun. Quarles, 467
81 L. Ed. 2d at
about the
U.S. at
posed
danger
559,
gun
In reaching
holding,
distinguished
its
Court
Orozco
Texas,
324,
311,
394
22 L.
(1969),
U.S.
Ed. 2d
89 S.
1095
Ct.
public safety exception
inapplicable
case which the
because
exigent
Quarles,
did
n.8,
circumstances
at 659
L.
exist.
467 U.S.
81
n.8,
Ed. 2d at 559
S.
Orozco,
104 Ct. at
n.8. In
four
hours after
restaurant,
murder had been
committed at a
officers
four
Orozco,
entered the
boardinghouse
defendant’s
him.
awakened
325,
at
394 U.S.
44 mind,
With these authorities in
we turn now to the facts presented
find
analogous
in the instant case. We
the facts of the instant case
Quarles.
The
were
“in the
distinguishable
Orozco and
from
not
Quarles.
in
very
apprehending”
they
defendant as
were
See
act of
557,
657,
Ed.
Quarles,
U.S. at
81 L.
2d at
Additionally,
the
in the instant case were
confronted
weapon
“just”
a
the
had
discarded a
situation where
defendant
657,
L.
Quarles,
at
81
populated
in a
or
area. See
467 U.S.
crowded
Indeed,
558,
Ct.
2632.
the time Holman
Ed. 2d at
104 S.
at
at
defendant,
searching
for
questioned
was aware that officers were
unpopu-
into
thought
being
observed
tossed out
the
gun that Valko
lated,
90
along
Bay
approximately
area
Green
Road
marsh-like
Orozco,
314,
325,
45
therefore,
and,
responses
questions
neither the
nor the
fall under the
Quarles,
656-58,
public
exception. See
L. Ed. 2d
safety
U.S. at
557-59,
affirmatively
We also find the erroneous trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s hospital statements the voluntarily given. were otherwise As notes, establish, the obligation State has the to aby evidence, preponderance of the voluntary. that statement is 725 11(d) (West ILCS 2004); Nicholas, People v. 218 Ill. 2d 118 5/114 — (2005). argues circumstances, the totality under his will physical to remain silent was due overborne to his condition at the time and due to nature interrogation the without his having warnings. received Miranda
To
voluntary,
determine whether
statement was
we consider the
totality
Nicholas,
of the circumstances.
Furthermore, above, warnings were not discussed any prior statements made defendant at given at time approximately 10 length interrogation hospital. The question minutes, given time the fact that one significant amount of again. repeatedly that he Holman testified was asked over over shooting gun if knew used asked defendant where initially respond did not calm and sedate and that defendant was questions. Holman continued to ask defendant “where and, hap “did he know what was,” gun,” did he do with the “what “I know responded, don’t where pened gun,” until defendant *14 more that he asked defendant “several gun the is.” Holman admitted visibly until defendant became about the location times” suggests in demeanor upset change The defendant’s began cry. Harbach, People v. will remain silent was overborne. See that his (1998) (finding a 5- 10-minute 111, App. 298 Ill. 3d 117-18 of speak police and the refusal to with interval between defendant’s an indication that attempt speak defendant was ficers’ next overborne). then to remain silent was defendant’s “resolve” the on alright if and asked him elaborate he was asked by making statement, responded life.” Defendant my “Curtis ruined for the shoot possible motive statements that went to five additional condition, intensity of the medical ing. defendant’s unknown Given minutes, of Miranda 10 the absence period over a of questioning the from the in demeanor change and the visible warnings, made interrogation his to the time defendant first began time Holman to meet its burden statements, that the State failed the we conclude statements finding that defendant’s trial court erred and that the
47 Harbach, circumstances. See totality voluntary under were reasons, conclude For all of these we App. Ill. 3d at 117-18. 298 of suppress all denying defendant’s motion court erred in trial hospital. at the he made statements denying that the trial court erred next contends Defendant he made at the statements suppress motion to the oral written made at the argues that the statements police station. Defendant made as a direct result of statements police station were obtained argues hospital because the state hospital. at the police made at the sta illegally, ments the statements were obtained tree” suppressed poisonous under the “fruit of the tion must also be (1987), 222 White, citing Wong Ill. 2d People doctrine. See v. 117 441, 453, States, 471, 484-85, 2d 83 S. v. 371 U.S. 9 L. Ed. Sun United (1963); Laliberte, App. Ill. 3d at 166. The State Ct. 415-16 246 station were suf responds that the statements made made at so as to ficiently attenuated from the statements “purged” any alleged prior questioning. taint from the have as a exclusionary requires
The
rule
that evidence obtained
trial.
illegal interrogation
direct result of an
be inadmissible at
See
222;
White,
Laliberte,
Ill.
3d at 166. The rule
App.
117 Ill.
prohibits
by
the admission of evidence obtained means of an unlawful
proceeding
by
act
unless the chain of causation
from
interrupted by
unlawful
has become attenuated or has been
conduct
circumstance,
intervening
imposed
some
so as to remove the “taint”
White,
Ill. 2d at 222.
upon
by
original illegality.
that evidence
unless it was “attenu
Consequently,
suppressed
the evidence must be
ated,”
by
sufficiently distinguishable from the
or obtained
means
purged
illegality.
it was
of the taint of that
unlawful conduct
White,
in determining
The first factor to be considered illegal police an action is ity given subsequent of a statement 48 warnings prior being a defendant received Miranda inter
whether Morris, Although giving 2d rogated. 209 Ill. at 157. warn alone, standing purge the taint a defendant’s ings enough, is not statement, giving warnings weighs illegally obtained finding People Jennings, App. of a of attenuation. v. 296 Ill. 3d favor (1998). case, In clearly 764 the instant the State established warnings prior making his oral and given defendant was police Accordingly, we find that this written statements at station. supports finding factor a of attenuation. presence intervening is the
The next factor to be considered purge subsequent the defendant’s state circumstances served Morris, Ill. 2d at prior police ments of the taint of the misconduct. rule, illegally general confronting suspect 157. As a obtained by demonstrating statement compelled evidence tends to induce a Turner, remaining People App. 259 Ill. futility of silent.
(1994). new, However, legally the confrontation of a defendant with intervening circumstance that possible information is one obtained and, police desire to make a statement to the may produce voluntary Ill. Jennings, of attenuation. thereby, weighs finding favor of 3d at 766. App. than
In
the record establishes
rather
present
new, legally
police
any
station with
confronting defendant at the
questions formed
information,
him with
Holman confronted
obtained
very
illegally
information he
obtained
upon
from and based
questions he
testify
specific
did not
as to the
hospital. While Holman
station,
During
Buckingham did.
defendant at the
asked
asked
Buckingham testified that Holman
suppression hearing,
possibility
might
that defendant
questions relating to
children, relating
relationship
with defendant’s
his
victim’s
lose
and mar-
“ruining” defendant’s life
wife,
relating
to the victim
could not have been
questioning
that such
riage. Buckingham testified
interrogation
station
during
based on information obtained
Indeed, Bucking-
hospital.
of the victim at the
during
or
the interview
victim at
entire interview with the
during
ham was with
interrogation of
during
the entire
station
hospital and
the source
that he did not know
Buckingham
Yet
testified
defendant.
questions. Buck-
Holman formulated his
from which
of the information
station inter-
during
agreed that at no time
ingham also
shambles,”
indicated
is in
that his “life
say
did defendant
rogation
statement.
summary of defendant’s
typewritten
in Holman’s
testimony.
sup
At the
inconsistency Holman’s
also note the
We
vis
that, after defendant became
testified
hearing, Holman
pression
state
inculpatory
six
defendant made
began
cry,
ibly upset
(1)
soul,
marriage”;
life,
and his
had “ruined his
ments:
the victim
*16
(3)
friends;
(2)
had been coworkers
and the victim
defendant
(4)
wife;
defendant’s
sleeping
suspected the victim
defendant
(5)
evening;
apartment
had been to the victim’s
defendant
(6)
children; and
custody of his
losing
defendant
worried about
was
here.” Hol
to be downhill from
“everything
going
is
defendant said
all of
responded with
hearing that defendant
man also testified at the
okay,
“if he
question,
one
was
after Holman asked
those statements
trial, however,
testified that
asked
wrong.” At
Holman
what was
okay.”
testified
wrong, if he was
Holman
“[w]hat
defendant
was
statement,
the victim had ruined
one
defendant answered with
on that state
expand
defendant to
encouraged
his life. Holman then
testified,
that.” Holman
ment, asking
by
him “what he meant
life,
soul,
my
mar
my
my
‘ruined
[the victim]
“Defendant said
state
inculpatory
The other five
riage’
say.”
and that’s all would
find the trial
testimony.
in Holman’s trial
We
ments were not included
Buckingham’s testi
that both Holman’s and
court’s determination
evidence,
against
weight
be
the manifest
mony was credible to
Pitman,
The third factor to be considered is
Morris, 209
illegal police
subsequent
action and the
statements.
of time
significant passage
Ill. 2d at
Courts have noted that a
157.
making
subsequent
of a
state
illegal police
between an
action and
factor,”
“may
amplify
serve to
“ambiguous
ment is an
which
there are
setting, particularly
latent in
custodial
where
[a]
coercion
or,
hand,
purge
“may help
other
other indicia of coercion”
on the
reflect on his
illegality by allowing
the taint of a
an accused to
prior
ameliorating
situation,
by other factors
particularly when attended
coercion,
People
warnings” having
such as Miranda
been administered.
(1987).
Lekas,
present
In the
the trial
App.
155 Ill.
gave
police
at the
court found that the written statement
The
approximately
presented
station
made at
5:30 a.m.
State
was
1:30
questioned
hospital
evidence that defendant
at the
between
transported
police
to the
sta
a.m. and 1:45 a.m. Defendant was then
a.m.
tion,
approximately
4:30
interrogation
where his
commenced
at the
Although
elapsed
defendant’s statements
three hours
between
station,
resumption
questioning
at the
this
delay
Upon
was necessitated
defendant’s medical treatment.
station,
resumption
questioning
im
mediately
hospital.
confronted with the statements he made at the
illegally
immediately upon
Holman’s use of these
obtained statements
“indici[um]
defendant’s arrival at the
station is an
of coercion”
discussed,
previously
weighs
finding
in favor of
no attenua
Turner,
991; Lekas,
App.
tion. See
259 Ill.
3d at
155 Ill.
3d at
App.
final
purpose
flagrancy
factor to consider is the
Morris,
Here,
approached
misconduct.
Having only found that one of attenuation, strongly support a determina and that the other three sufficiently were not attenu tion that the station statements statements, we conclude illegally ated from the obtained made at the finding that the statements the trial court erred intelligent knowing after a waiver voluntarily given station were Laliberte, White, 222; 246 Ill. 117 Ill. 2d at rights. of defendant’s See erred in Therefore, that the trial court 3d at 166. we conclude App. police sta suppress all of defendant’s denying defendant’s motion White, 117 Ill. 2d at tree. See poisonous statements as fruit of the tion 222; Laliberte, at 166. App. 246 Ill. 3d
51 court’s er of the trial impact prejudicial next consider We at trial does evidence illegally obtained Admission rulings. roneous Pierre, 122 Ill. People v. St. retrial. See always necessitate harmless, jury’s verdict (1988). court’s error was If the trial 113 he considered an error to Pierre, Ill. 2d at 114. For St. will stand. the er doubt that reasonable beyond a harmless, must be satisfied we Pierre, 122 Ill. St. conviction. to the defendant’s did not contribute ror the evidence the case and the facts of must review 2d at 113-14. We evidence unlawfully admitted effect, any, if trial to determine what attorneys’ upon adduced at trial the other evidence upon had Pierre, Ill. 2d fact. See St. the trier of arguments conduct at 114. directly conflict case, jury presented present
In the
ag
the initial
or the victim was
ing testimony as to whether
mo
of defendant’s
probative
obtained statements
gressor.
illegally
Furthermore,
credibility.
upon defendant’s
clearly impacted
tive
specific
made
trial,
and the State
both the defense
throughout
Indeed, the State
statements.
improperly obtained
reference to the
atten
pay particular
closing
jury
that the
should
argued extensively
belief
regarding defendant’s
written statement
tion to defendant’s
had
affair and how that
having an
that his wife and the victim were
the circumstances
marriage.
and his
Under
ruined defendant’s life
find
a reasonable doubt
beyond
are unable to
this
we
did not contribute to
obtained statements
illegally
Pierre,
such,
a new trial. See St.
As
defendant is entitled to
conviction.
Nevertheless,
that we have reviewed
As
by
noted
defendant failed to make an offer
proof
specific
of
below as to the
sought
Lacking
evidence he
to admit.
such an offer
proof,
we cannot review the
propriety of
trial
ruling
court’s
People
to exclude the evidence. See
Thompkins,
v.
(1998).
1,
However,
Ill. 2d
9-10
ruling
we do note that in
on the mo
limine,
tion in
the trial court was under the mistaken belief that there
legal precedent
allowing
is no
propensity evidence of the victim.
Where a defendant raises self-defense as an affirmative defense
defense,
and presents
support
some evidence in
evidence of the
aggressive
may
victim’s violent or
character
be admissible to show the
defendant,
confronting
circumstances
apparent
the extent of the
danger, and the
motive or state of mind
which
defendant was
(1963).
Davis,
People
specifi
influenced.
v.
29 Ill. 2d
129-30
More
cally,
aggressive
may
a victim’s
character
violent
be admissible to
support a
theory
ways. People Lynch,
of self-defense
two
104 Ill.
(1984).
First,
knowledge
199-200
the defendant’s
mind
necessarily
victim’s tendencies for violence
affects
state
perception
of and
Lynch,
reaction
victim’s behavior.
104 Ill.
Therefore, deadly
may
2d at 200.
force that
be
in an
unreasonable
person may
response
altercation with a nonviolent
be reasonable in
by person
aggressive
same behavior
known to have violent and
Lynch,
knowledge
tendencies.
Second,
conflicting
are
where there
accounts as to who the initial
confrontation,
in a
aggressor
propensity
evidence of the victim’s
aggressiveness may
support
for violence
be admissible to
In
Lynch,
defendant’s version of the facts.
53
may
among his coworkers
reputation
of the victim’s
coworker and
the percep
state mind in
defendant’s
have
relevant
show
been
Ill. 2d at
Lynch,
200.
victim’s behavior.
tion of and reaction
relevant
to show that
may also have been
Such evidence
defending himself
of force in
responded
a reasonable amount
Finally,
2d at
such evidence
Lynch, 104 Ill.
against the victim.
judging
the cred
may
the trier
fact
probative
have been
to assist
events,
the unlaw
ibility
especially
absent
of defendant’s version
Given the
fully
previously
motive
discussed.
obtained
evidence
to who the initial
testimony of defendant and
victim as
conflicting
was,
may
the trier of
aggressor
propensity
provided
evidence
have
Lynch, 104
complete picture
really
fact with more
of what
occurred.
course,
Ill. 2d
Of
all of the normal rules of evidence as
at 200.
reputation
apply.
evidence
See
admissibility
propensity
Therefore,
Lynch,
propensity
Ill. 2d at 200-01.
even if the
evidence
may
theory of self-defense
above
be relevant to defendant’s
discussed
remand,
on
that the evidence is otherwise
must establish
Lynch,
For the we vacate defendant’s convictions and sentence, remand new and we the case for a trial.
Reversed and remanded.
McLAREN, J., concurs. KAPALA,
JUSTICE
specially concurring:
agree
I
majority’s
with the
conclusion that
the State failed to
carry its
establishing by
burden of
preponderance
of the evidence
inculpatory
that the
statements defendant
made at the
were
voluntary
Thus,
under the fifth amendment.
those statements
are
agree
inadmissible.
I also
there was insufficient attenuation to
chain,
break the causal
such that
subsequent
station house
inculpatory statements came from the “exploitation of that illegality”
*20
“by
not
means sufficiently distinguishable
purged
to be
of the
Sun,
primary
(Wong
488,
taint”
455,
Failure
prophylactic
to administer
the
warnings
Miranda
results
presumption
that unwarned statements are involuntary and does
carry
consequence
not
the same
police infringement
as actual
of an
individual’s
privilege
against
constitutional
compulsory
self-
concept
Elstad,
incrimination. This
Oregon
was made clear in
(1985):
222,
U.S.
84 L. Ed. 2d
In it is right the fruits of a violation of a constitutional Miranda) just of the prophylactic sup- standards set forth in that are pressed under the “fruits” doctrine. In this once we conclude the State failed to demonstrate that statements hospital amendment, fifth voluntary made were under the we need any purported not concern ourselves with violation of the rule violation, together stated in Miranda. The fifth amendment with a attenuation, lack sufficient supports suppression state- hospital ments at the as the statements made at the sta- well only the support suppression tion. A Miranda violation would and not statements hospital at the statements defendant made Quarles Thus, analysis majority’s station. made that all reach our conclusion unnecessary is exception suppressed. should have been defendant’s statements distin- analysis does not Moreover, majority’s fruits-doctrine of a constitutional in the form of a violation illegality between an guish As a of Miranda. in the form of a violation right illegality and an to confuse the bench and result, opinion could serve majority serve as that Miranda can suggesting violation by improperly bar attenuation, is tree, which, sufficient the fruit of absent poisonous at trial. inadmissible reasons, I reverse defendant’s convictions foregoing
For the would under the rationale remand for a new trial exclusive were inadmis- defendant made at inculpatory statements the inculpatory under fifth amendment and statements sible fruit made the inadmissible of that constitutional thereafter were violation. *21 ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MINNITI, Defendant-Appellant. JOSHUA R.
Second District No. 2 - 05-0028
Opinion April filed