*1 taxpayer’s claim act a bar to a payments doctrine tory will do case not war- relief, maintain, the facts of instant defendants rant such determination. voluntarily money that voluntary payment provides doctrine government’s claim to solely because the cannot be recovered
paid Al Suburban, App. 3d at 855. funds unlawful. West such compelled pay the Fee they that though the assert were Gofises that neither losing agree defendants property, risk their we with their pay to fail to “compelled” plaintiffs County nor the Treasurer (the nor collected), Fee in which the is even only taxes circumstance pay taxes due unexpected consequence it that the of failure to view, Additionally, thereof. our may real estate the loss Suburban, in cogently distinguished West which defendants have hospital repeatedly several errors to which the government made case, in le the instant which Fee was registered objections, from objections imposition.7 perceive made to We gitimate and no were its holding no conflict that and our herein. decision grant reasons, court’s of dis- foregoing For we affirm trial challenged pursuant missal to section 2—615 because collection Property fee is authorized 21—245 Tax Code. section Affirmed. EJ.,
HARTMAN, HOFFMAN, J., concur. ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. CHARLES (5th Division) First District No. 1—98—2123 Opinion July filed 2001. objec support proposition cited
7Plaintiffs have no case law in subsequent tion can take form of a lawsuit.
REID, J., dissenting. (Denise Fry, Defender, Chicago Avant, Rita A. Public of A. Assistant Pub- Defender, counsel), appellant. lic of for (Renee Devine, Attorney, Chicago Goldfarb, Richard A. State’s of Alan J. Elbaum, Spellberg, Attorneys, counsel), and Daniel of W Assistant State’s People. the QUINN
PRESIDING JUSTICE the opinion delivered of the court: Following trials, separate jury simultaneous Charles Williams and codefendant, Peal, his Dwight guilty were found of the first degree murder of Andrew years Webb. Williams was 15 old at time the the of offense but was pursuant tried and sentenced as an adult to section 4(6)(a) (705 4(6)(a) the of Juvenile Court Act of 1987 ILCS 5— 405/5 — (West 1996)). initially Williams was years sentenced to 30 in Il Corrections, Department linois but reconsideration, after this years. sentence to 25 appeal, was reduced On defendant claims that: (1) the trial court suppressed should have his statements (2) authorities; in admitting prejudicial court erred evidence regarding the structure of street (3) gang membership; defendant’s evidence was insufficient prove guilt theory on a defendant’s of accountability where defendant present merely asserts at time offense did shooting. participate follow, For the reasons we affirm. concerning shooting arose out of the case facts death early morning 13, 1996, July Andrew Webb hours Street, lobby housing building State project 3542-44 South Chicago. picked up by police p.m. The defendant was at 3:30 July 16, trial, motion suppress 1996. Before filed a *4 during interrogation by police prosecu- obtained and statements his argued notify that the efforts to his mother of police tors. Defendant insufficient, youth present a officer not his whereabouts were eight arrest, expressed hours his and the officer no youth until after safeguarding rights. interest in his Frank Detective suppress, to
During hearing on the motion 16, 1996, at on up July picked that defendant was Valadez testified shortly after testified that officers. Valadez police other p.m. 3:30 station, years told him he was 15 defendant police at Area One arrival number phone home asked defendant for his mother’s old. Valadez testified times but one answered. Valadez called it three or four no and employment and left phoned place then defendant’s mother’s to important it the mother message co-employee that was with ap- at her testified that police regarding call the son. Valadez availability of a officer to proximately p.m. youth he checked on the youth He was told a officer participate interview defendant. available. Valadez would be sent to him as soon one became youth Terrell suspects other and until officer interviewed witnesses him gave p.m. Shortly thereafter, 11:30 defendant his saw at Valadez rights and “basic The Miranda Terrell asked defendant information.” place large in a room and defendant was not interview took conference handcuffed. statement, approximately midnight, initial at defendant girlfriend shooting.
said he was with his at the time of the Valadez spoke girlfriend, that he who did corroborate testified story. again 12:30 a.m. on defendant’s Valadez talked defendant at July 17, him of the then admit- discrepancy. told Defendant a.m., present shooting. ted he was At 3:30 an State’s assistant Attorney agreed give a court interviewed defendant defendant a.m., reported Op- statement. Michael Attorney At Assistant State’s penheimer took a from court-reported statement presence of Valadez and Terrell. hearing
Defendant’s mother also testified at the the motion to on phone is she suppress. She testified that she deaf but that has a TTY designed hearing-impaired A TTY is to allow telephone her home. persons phone rings, to communicate over the When the telephone. light communicate, phone goes hearing-impaired on the on. To message person types message phone’s keyboard. her on the printed TTY where it is out. phone, then transmitted to another on, indicating phone go Defendant’s mother saw the light never incoming an call. that on the On cross-examination she admitted picked July 16, neighbor police afternoon of told her had up thought her neighbor police her son. told that she taken Defendant’s mother testified her son 51st Wentworth. go did not Area One or Area One. She also admitted that she call she light phone go would not seen the on the on while that she have sleeping. Valadez, being up by after he was picked Defendant testified that *5 put handcuffed in an where was and interview room he handcuffed point a chair. Defendant testified that at one Valadez told him he that spoken had to defendant’s mother. Valadez said defendant’s mother happy him and very with she told Valadez to “leave black his only in here.” ass Defendant testified that At- assistant State’s torney rights read him his and when made court-reported state- ment at he only repeated police 6 a.m. what the him told about case. rebuttal, Officer Thomas Richardson testified that he and his
partner picked up 3:30, present, Valadez was not de- and fendant was not handcuffed. After trial arguments, the court denied suppress the motion to defendant’s statements. May
Fannie Branch that p.m. July 12, testified about 5:30 walking past she was with her two building cousins located at in Chicago, 3542-44 South State Street which by was “controlled” Gangster Disciples gang. group street She saw of men she recognized the Gangster Disciples standing building. as members of outside the defendant, group Freeman, included Dwight James Peal and Narvel Salter. Branch lived in for year the area and was familiar all four Gangster Disciples and knew them be members of the gang. past building, she “writing street As walked she saw Salter die, GD, going something.” BD something, some and then Disciples gang, “BD” to the referred Black street while “GD” referred the Gangster Disciples gang. Branch then to her street went sister’s home for the next several hours.
When Branch left p.m., her sister’s house about 9:30 she saw group men same outside side and back of the 3542 doors build- ing, with recognized other men she also as of the Gangster members Disciples. lights Branch testified were on in the ar- common upstairs She played apartment eas. went and cards at her cousin’s a.m. apartment until about 3 She then left her cousin’s and walked down the stairs. stairwell, Peal, Salter,
At the bottom of the Branch saw Mario Bailey person only holding guns. and She another she knew “Mike” lights by and hallway also saw that the elevator were out forth, walking back out the and looking Peal was front back doors. out, why lights Branch asked stated that When were Salter Gangster Disciples Black peace treaty between the and the going She Disciple” had been broken and that “Black to die. victim, say, Disciple,” [sic] heard Peal “Here come a Black as the Webb, through Andrew walked the front door. The victim said “What’s nobody replied. pushed but Salter then Branch behind some bricks up” stairs, Bailey fired at the by he and each two shots victim. saw the up, she she stood “get out.” When Branch to then told Salter opened then him. Peal around floor with blood lying on the victim not see Peal did that she Branch testified could leave. door so she Housing Chicago told a that she Branch testified fire shots. Mike Detec- talked to She then had seen. what she Authority police officer to an assistant statement gave a written and later John Bloore tive jury. grand before a Attorney and testified State’s Street, State South lived at 3542 that she Cherlyn testified Wilson shooting, Before the Webb. Andrew boyfriend, her July 1996 with around it writing body with dead figure of a a stick there was controlled she lived was building where underneath her window. calls getting phone hearing shots Disciples. After downstairs. went people, Wilson mother and some other from Webb’s *6 There off. one of his shoes the floor with lying Webb Wilson saw Disciples prevent could Gangster the in the front door so a stick they police, the and when going. She called coming from people them in. Medical door and let arrived, the stick from the she removed gunshot died as a result testified that Webb examiner Dr. Chira chest. wounds to his Bloore testified defendant, Detective John objection
Over Gangster Disciples consisted hierarchy of the gang expert that the a members, regions, Hoover, governors, leader, Larry then board the soldiers make sure coordinators, and soldiers. Coordinators lowest-ranking are the paid. are Soldiers money turn in their they are they are told gang, they and if do not do as members “violated,” being killed. Bloore testi- may which include punished, or Stateway Gardens a coordinator fied that Narvel Salter was building. State included the 3542-44 South housing project, which make a and would not that defendant was soldier Bloore testified split Disciples the Black major decisions. Bloore testified that “minister” in the Black was a Gangster Disciples. from the Webb Gangster in the governor Disciples, equivalent which is the South building located at 3517 the leader of the Disciples. Webb was ap- housing project, Federal, building Stateway Garden another month Approximately South State. one block from 3542 proximately Disciples murdered, in the Black an administrator Webb was before over whether dispute There within was killed. or the his members of own by had been shot administrator Gangster uneasy between the things Gangster Disciples. This made Disciples. Black Disciples and the shooting and saw of the Kyle Erbacker was at scene
Officer Written rear door of 3542. just in chalk outside the figure stick drawn bitch.” On the tonight die the letters “GDN or figure next to the were (Webb’snickname) wall “NuNu” printed. “G” were He also saw a star, broken six-pointed sign which is a of disrespect for the Black Disciples. later, Some three hours he saw the letters “DOA” next to figure.
Valadez testified before the jury in a manner consistent with his testimony at the hearing on the suppress motion to statements.
Assistant State’s Attorney Oppenheimer testified jury before the in the same manner as at suppression hearing. He additionally spoke testified that he to defendant alone and asked him how he had been police. treated Defendant said he had been treated well. While reading defendant rights, during court-reported state- ment, Oppenheimer told him though that even years old, he was 15 would be tried and sentenced as an adult.
As defendant’s conviction rests primarily statement, on his we will recite it in some detail. Defendant said that he had been a member of Gangster Disciples for four or five months. He was a soldier—“I do people what the with rank tell me to do.” He said there awas meeting Gangster July 12, board on 1996. “I was told there was going to be a war between Disciples and Black Disciples...That they meant going were shooting.” to start place conversation took outside 3542 South State and included Narvel Salter, Bailey, Dwight Peal, Mario and two others. All of them were in lobby shortly conversation, after the with defendant sitting on a crate.
“Q. you working Were security for this? A. really. really. Not Not But I just was around there Iso did it... you security When work sitting oint no down. Supposed to stand by the door.
Q. What does it security? mean to work *7 A. Like call out police when the come. And like since it al- was ready tension Disciples between Black Disciples,you had all theirself; Black break they got that means to raise up their shirt they [if gun]. show had a
* * * gun...He Narvel had a playing Like, man, with it. they if out, come going get them, we are you I saying. know what am Q. you What did interpret that to mean? going
A. That he was somebody. to kill * * * Q. [victim] Once building, came into the happened? what A. When he building came people the first I told—I was getting ready himself, to tell him to break already but he broke himself. [He armed]. was not
[*] * * Q. shirt, If up you he not broken himself or lifted would him have asked to break himself?
A. Yes.
Q. happened Once he did that what next? came, Dwight A. Narvel followed him. And Narvel and then just it was two shots.
Q. you gang? Do know if is in a Nu-Nu A. Yes.
Q. What is he in? I they A. think said he is Disciples. minister Black Q. Does minister mean that rank in Disciples? he has the Black A. Yes.
Q. youDo if your gang? know has rank in Narvel A. Yes.
Q. rank your gang? What does Narvel have in A. Coordinator.
Q. What does coordinator mean? A. He up region, like—he under the gets everything so he together.
Q. war, So does that mean if there orwas there is a that he would put togther what needs to be done?
A. Yes.
Q. When came in building, anything say Nu-Nu did he do anything? you know,
A. He looked like he wary. like He didn’t look like— usually because when he came building, guys to the he have a lot of around. He came himself.
Q. you why always Do know building? comes to that girlfriend A. Because his building. lives in that Q. up Once he lifted anything, his shirt and didn’t show where go? did he
A. It looked like going up girlfriend’s house, he was to his but he get didn’t a chance to make it. Because as soon as he turn the corner, right room, behind the mailbox got is where he killed.
Q. As he turned the happened? corner then tell me what A. As he turned the corner just Narvel followed him. And it was Everybody him, like two shots. going right. to follow Q. Why everybody going to follow him?
A. Because he is a got coordinator and we to watch. I So when shots, Speedy heard the two building, ran out the out the front door, stairs, and I up just ran ran.
* * * Q. stop you ran, Let me right you there. Before though, you did gun? see Narvel with a
A. Yes.
428 Q. you gun? with a Where did see Narvel him, Nu-Nu; you standing right over him but
A. Like over know.
Q. doing gun? What was Narvel just He had shot him.” A. he had to another give gun said that he saw Salter used
Defendant member, That member building. who took it into another hid this gave gun then a different to the defendant. The defendant in the gun under his mother’s water bed. The defendant lived building. in manner with her
Defendant’s mother testified consistent during hearing suppress motion to statements. testimony closing arguments, jury found defendant defense rested. After degree The court sentenced defendant to 30 guilty of first murder. The court reconsidered years Department in the Illinois of Corrections. timely imposed 25-year ap- the sentence and sentence. Defendant peals. argues sup-
Defendant first that his statements should have been notify his mother of whereabouts pressed police because efforts to his insufficient, youth present eight until hours af- were officer was not arrest, youth expressed safeguard- and the officer no interest ter his ing rights. reviewing voluntary,
(cid:127)1 In a defendant’s confession was whether great accord deference to the trial court’s factual courts of review will findings only they against if are findings, and we will reverse these However, we review de nova weight manifest of the evidence. G.O., voluntary. In re question ultimate of whether confession 191 Ill. 2d 6(2) respondent questioned,
(cid:127)2 section At the time 5— provided: Juvenile Court Act custody a minor into
“A enforcement officer who takes law shall, Section 5—5 if the minor is not without a warrant under released, notify par- immediately attempt make a reasonable or the legally responsible for the minor’s care person ent or other taken the minor resides that the minor has been person with whom held; being custody and the minor is law into where delay minor unnecessary shall take the enforcement officer without designated purposes for such juvenile police to the nearest officer juvenile the minor to a county or shall surrender venue alleged to city village where the offense is police officer 6(2) (West1996). committed.” 705 ILCS have been 405/5— voluntary, a juvenile’s confession is determining (cid:127)3 In whether G.O., 2d In re 191 Ill. totality the circumstances. looks to the court Factors to McNeal, 54; respondent’s age, intelligence, background, expe consider include the rience, education, mental capacity, physical condition at the time questioning; detention; the legality and duration of the the duration questioning; physical by police, or mental abuse includ *9 ing promises. Gilliam, existence of threats or People v. 172 Ill. 2d (1996). 484, 500-01 juvenile a involved,
When
the courts should also consider the
time
day
questioning
presence
when
occurred and the
absence
parent
re L.L.,
or other adult
interested
the minor’s welfare. In
(1998).
594,
Ill. App.
295
3d
600-01
single
dispositive.
No
factor is
Gilliam,
People v.
In
appeal,
this
defendant
argument
focuses most of his
on the as
sertion
youth
that the
officer’s failure to actively protect
rights
was a
suppressing
basis for
his statements. Defendant
cites
hold
ings in
J.J.C.,
In re
App.
227,
294 Ill.
3d
(1998),
L.L.,
237
In re
295 Ill.
App.
594,
(1998),
3d
G.O.,
and In re
304 Ill. App. 3d
(1999). All three of these cases held that
youth
where the
officer failed
to demonstrate an
juvenile’s
interest
in the
welfare, the statutory
purpose
requirement
behind the
youth
that a
officer be notified was
defeated. These decisions
People
were criticized in
Plummer,
Ill.
App. 3d
(1999),
586-87
v. Hardaway,
592, 607-08
importantly,
More
our supreme court reversed the
appellate
G.O.,
court in In re
as factor J., (McMorrow, dissenting). G.O., 191 Ill. 2d 70-71 re case, present that Terrell In the instant Valadez testified defendant, Mi- that Valadez read defendant his all interviews with Terrell and Terrell asked defendant rights presence randa did not al- suppress, information.” In his motion to “basic jury, confession read to the the de- lege court-reported coercion. Miranda, rights under that he fendant said he understood his adult, an and that he understood he would be tried sentenced as Attorney Oppenhei- State’s by police. was treated well Assistant presence defendant outside the spoke mer testified that he police. treated well Under the police and defendant said was circumstances, totality of the we find that defendant’s statements voluntary. were argues allowing next that the trial court erred in
(cid:127)5 Defendant testify regarding Detective Bloore to the structure of history gang’s relationship Disciples street and the gang. the Black street (1) three-part analysis to determine this issue: employ
We testimony expert’s opinion; an qualifies whether Detective Bloore’s *10 (3) (2) does, relevant?; testimony prejudicial if it and does the ef outweigh probative People Clifton, value? v. testimony fect of the its 707, (2000); App. Ill. 3d App. People Davenport, 321 Ill. 3d 719 v. 301 626, (1998), Jackson, 143, citing People App. v. 145 Ill. 3d 633 150 (1998). Cruzado, 131, 141 (1986); App. v. 299 Ill. 3d People see also testimony qualifies as dispute Defendant does not that Bloore’s it to Fannie Branch’s expert opinion. argues He that was cumulative “get Disciples Disciples and Black did not testimony Gangster that the building Gangster controlled along,” that the 3542-44 treaty Gangster between the Disciples and Salter told her that and there was a war. Disciples and Black had been broken reasonably concluded that Bloore’s knowl The trial court could have gangs the two street hierarchy the detailed and activities of edge about Davenport, App. v. 301 Ill. People to that of Branch. See superior an testify Bloore to as (holding allowing that Detective 3d at 150 error). expert was not was irrelevant and was argues testimony that Bloore’s
Defendant the trial the discretion of jury. inflame the It is within only offered to admissible, and a relevant and to determine whether evidence is court absent the trial court’s determination reviewing court will not reverse the defen resulting prejudice in manifest to of discretion clear abuse (1996). 597, Similarly, a 604 Pursley, App. v. 284 Ill. 3d People dant. overturned on gang evidence will not be to admit trial court’s decision
431
Gonzalez,
v.
142 Ill.
appeal
People
absent a clear abuse
discretion.
(1994).
481,
(1991);
Colon,
23,
Ill.
People
2d
489-90
v.
162
2d
30
supreme
acknowledged
appellate
Our
court and our
court have
may
strong prejudice against
gangs.
that there
street
v.
People
be
(2000),
Patterson,
Strain,
467,
Ill.
v.
Ill.
citing People
194
2d
477
154
414,
Smith,
40,
(1992);
(1990);
2d
v.
141 Ill. 2d
People
People
458
58
v.
719,
(1999); People
Jimenez,
App.
312 Ill.
3d
v.
284
Pogue,
App.
Ill.
908,
3d
In spite
prejudice, gang-related
of this
evidence
People
will not
if it
necessarily
excluded
is relevant
admissible.
Gonzalez,
489; People
v.
142 Ill. 2d at
3d
Davenport,
App.
v.
301 Ill.
at
150. Relevant
that
ex
tendency
evidence is
which has
to make the
consequence
istence of
fact of
to the determination of the action
probable
more or
it
less
than would be without the evidence.
v.
People
Gonzalez,
Gang-related evidence is admissible to that the defendant show purpose acted with a common part or was common criminal design, provide a inexplicable or to motive for an People otherwise act. Smith, 58; v. 141 Ill. 2d at v. People Clifton, App. 321 Ill. 3d 722. at Gang-related evidence is also relevant to issue of identification or to People Gonzalez, corroborate a defendant’s confession. v. 142 Ill. 2d 488; However, v. People Davenport, App. 301 Ill. 3d at 151. such ev idence must be charged. Strain, related to crime v. People 194 Ill. (2000); Joya, App. v. 319 Ill. People Mason, (1995), defendant cites App. 274 Ill. 3d 715 support position. Mason, for his the defendant the murder victim were both trial Disciples. The court allowed the State gang-specialist testimony motive, introduce its support theory superior which was that a gang member ordered the defendant kill the victim of a because fear that the victim had become an informer. that testimony court held while regarding the structure motive, theory testimony relevant the State’s
regarding rivalries, drug tattoos sales was not relevant. Mason, 3d at 722. This court also found error in the argument State’s photographs of the defendant’s tattoos showed *11 that the defendant was proud gang of his than membership, rather arguing that the tattoos gang, showed defendant was a member of a which been proper. Mason, App. would have 274 at Ill. 3d 723. This court held that the defendant a fair trial was denied where much of gang-crime testimony irrelevant, the inflammatory was and excessive.
The State responds Supreme that the Illinois Court evi allowed gang dence of history Lucas, structure and in People v. 151 Ill. 2d 488-89 There expert the trial court allowed an witness to 432 Gangster the Black inception development and of
testify as to the committed, and crime was the 1960s to the time the Disciples from activity gang the of criminal the was involved in. types also described properly exercised its supreme court held that the trial court it to crime admitting the as relevant the discretion in evidence (the official) prison of a and this consideration charged murder outweighed testimony’s prejudicial effect. the (1993), up Fort, App. this court
In v. Ill. 3d and testimony history about the police held the admission of a officer’s gangs. and We noted that since structure of the defendant’s victim’s by a suggested killing that the victim’s was motivated the evidence testimony gangs, regarding the and victim’s feud between defendant’s history and gang’s the defendant’s infrastructure was relevant murder. knowledge the defendant’s and involvement the show (1998), Ill. 3d 143 this af People Davenport, App. In court testimony relating history and structure of firmed Bloore’s (the Stones) Gangster E and that of Black Stone Nation street meaning gang symbols and Disciples. testimony included the This gangs’ respective territories. It also tattoos and the boundaries of gang may a in a be “violated” for included the fact that soldier street In member of the obey higher-up. Davenport, an order of a a failure thought person the defendant was a Stones had shot and killed regarding the testimony found Bloore’s Gangster Disciple. court explain an otherwise hierarchy was relevant to defendant’s shooting. This court inexplicable act and to establish motive rivalry gangs, testimony regarding found Bloore’s between also flagging” the tactics of “false gangs, the boundaries between the Ill. 3d at 151. Davenport, App. relevant and admissible. However, testimony regarding found the back this court Bloore’s activity more ground, gangs two to be “far history and criminal troublesome, Davenport, it to the offense at issue.” peripheral as affirming, upon this court relied 151-52. extremely deferential standard of review. case, testimony properly
In the we find that Bloore’s instant jury that needed to be informed Defendant concedes admissible. Disciples at so far the fact that Gangster least as the structure of the soldiers, de- Salter, like coordinators, may give like orders Narvel testimony regarding structure We find Bloore’s fendant. because, court-reported state- in his Disciples to be relevant Gangster earlier meeting “board” ment, defendant said there was be- going to be “war” 12, 1996, told there was July that explained He Disciples. and Black tween the that, “coordinator,” “region,” was under the Salter was a who *12 433 “soldier,” he, defendant, the tell people “do[es] the rank what Disciples to Defendant that Black had to “break” [him] do.” stated of they when that the victim was a minister the entered 3542-44 and he the Disciples. Black Defendant further stated that and others to he the he is a coordinator follow Salter when shot victim “because got testimony regarding history and we to watch.” As to the the of the Gangster Disciples partic- Disciples, and Black we find that under the case, ular Gangster Disciples facts of this where of the shot a members off, minister Disciples of the Black after a truce called it rele- vant. Unlike the P Davenport, facts where members of the Black Gangster Stone street they Nation shot someone believed to be a Disciple, here, the Disciples Disciples and the Black share common history. Testimony regarding split of Black up the the Gangster Disciples Gangster Disciples into the Black and explain was relevant to the source of friction between the gangs. two case, particular Based on the facts especially of this defendant’s statement in which he regarding describes how the orders “war” the “board,” come form the gang’s relayed “coordinators,” were who relayed “soldiers,” them to regarding we find Bloore’s testimony the structure the gangs of was “ properly admissible the exercise trial may court’s discretion. ‘An accused not insulate the trier of fact from his membership it is where relevant to a determination of case, simply prejudice because [Cita attaches to that revelation. ” tion.]’ Gonzalez, v. People 142 Ill. 2d 489. (cid:127)6 Finally, argues defendant that the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty where he merely present asserts he was at the time of participate offense did not shooting. reviewing When sufficiency case, of the evidence in a criminal question the relevant whether, is “viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of could have fact found the essential elements of the beyond Brown, crime People reasonable doubt.” v. (1996). 132, 169 Ill. 2d 152 The verdict “will not be overturned unless unreasonable, is] [it so improbable, unsatisfactory as to leave a Brown, reasonable doubt to the guilt.” defendant’s 169 Ill. 2d at Furthermore, 152. the trier fact responsibility bears the of determin ing witnesses, the credibility weight given to be their testimony, and reasonable to be inferences drawn from the evidence (1996). presented. People Bofman, 546, App. v. 283 Ill. 3d It reviewing retry the function of the court to or substitute judgment its for that of trier fact questions involv ing the credibility of weight People witnesses and the the evidence. Mullen, v. law,
(cid:127)7 Under legally Illinois a defendant is for accountable person during if or the commission “[e]ither conduct of another before offense, com- promote with the intent to or facilitate such of an abets, aid, mission, solicits, or other aids, agrees attempts such person in the 720 ILCS planning or commission the offense.” 5/5— 2(c) 1996). (West that, requires person to be accountability
(cid:127)8 statute another, solicit, for the criminal acts of he must legally accountable aid, abet, agree attempt to aid criminal acts of another. or Perez, prove pos To that the defendant 189 Ill. 2d crime, promote the State must *13 sessed intent facilitate present proves that a doubt that either: beyond evidence reasonable (1) (2) or principal; the defendant shared the criminal intent the Perez, design. a v. 189 Ill. 2d at People there was common criminal ac 266. from the character of the defendant’s may Intent be inferred surrounding the commission of the tions and from the circumstances Perez, Ill. at People offense. v. 189 2d 266. that design provides
(cid:127)9 “The rule where two [criminal] common design agreement, or in a common or persons engage more criminal design by [any] in acts the furtherance of that common committed parties design are be acts of all to the or party one considered to the agreement consequences are for the of the equally responsible and all Perez, “Further, proof v. Ill 2d at 267. of the People further acts.” 189 by agreement or purpose supported common need not be words evidence, surrounding can drawn from circumstances direct but be the Basden, group.” App. a v. 264 Ill. by People the of an act commission (1994). 530, voluntarily 3d that the defendant attached 548 Evidence illegal acts, knowledge design, to a on with its group himself bent purpose also that he shared the common supports an inference People for an by will sustain his conviction offense committed another. (1995). 131, 164 2d 141 Taylor, v. Ill. stated, indicating previously As that the defendant
(cid:127)10 evidence activity gang-related or was involved in a member of design. purpose show common or common criminal admissible to Smith, 58; Davenport, App. 301 Ill. 3d People People v. 141 Ill. 2d at v. 142; 321 Cruzado, Clifton, 3d v. 151; People App. People v. at Ill. App. 3d at 722. presence at the commission of However,
(cid:127)11 mere defendant’s knowledge the or crime, joined flight from crime even-when with accountability. People v. commission, is to establish of its not sufficient (1998). Nevertheless, in 87, participation Dennis, active 181 Ill. 2d 105 crimi imposition requirement an offense has never been McComb, 312 Ill. theory. People v. accountability an guilt nal under (2000). actively 589, may aid and abet without App. 593 “One 3d
435 Taylor, v. Ill. 2d at participating People in the overt act.” 140. Thus, may through person’s knowledge be accountability established participation though in the there of and criminal scheme even is no directly participated evidence that he the criminal act itself. In re W.C., 167 Ill. 2d may by jury, may
(cid:127)12 Factors be considered and which crime, an inference that an accused aided the commission of a raise “(1) crime; presence during planning include: defendant’s (2) any nega at the of the crime presence defendant’s scene without (3) it; illegal from acceptance proceeds tive reactions to the actual (4) scene, perpetrator; from flight especially after victim has (5) (6) injured killed; incident; report been failure to defendant’s perpetrator continued association after the crim Walker, inal act.” v. Ill.
(cid:127)13 Applying
case,
above case
law to
of this
it is clear
facts
voluntarily
that “defendant
group
attached himself to a
bent on illegal
acts, with knowledge
design.”
of its
supports
an inference that he
group’s
purpose
shared the
common
conviction for the murder
may
committed
ground.
Salter
People Taylor,
sustained
this
aided of a commission we find: Defendant pres- during planning ent of the crime—defendant told authorities that he knew that the Disciples “board” had met and that a on; prior “war” was the shooting, lobby defendant saw Salter *14 gun with a out, and Salter said “if come they going get we are to them,” which defendant kill going knew meant that Salter to was (2) somebody. present crime, Defendant was at the scene of the and only not did he any negative it, not have reaction said go- to he he was own, tell ing to Webb to “break” when did so and if he on his Webb so, not him done defendant would told have to. was done at a Disciple. time when he kill a knew Salter intended to Black Defendant ranking knew Webb was a member Black and he building the frequented at 3542-44. Defendant Salter as followed he followed Webb around the did corner. Defendant said he this because (3) Salter was coordinator and the soldiers had to watch. While de- illegal proceeds perpetrator, fendant did not from accept the actual gun (although did hide a weapon) given not the by murder he was an- (4) other immediately shooting. member the Defendant after did (5) run from the scene after the victim killed. Defendant failed to (6) report the incident. Defendant continued to with the associate perpetrators after criminal hid a gun the act. He and saw others take only the victim’s shoe. arguably present factor was defendant murder, this was a illegal proceeds perpetrator, from the but accepting robbery not an armed or theft. (“Mere Presence”) Max, Accountability in Il
In B. Criminal linois, (2001), author, Ill. B.J. 248 the Public Assistant Defender the Max, addressing recent Illinois of Brendan discussed cases issues upon accountability. in After presence premised mere cases an excel law, Max there suggests lent discussion of recent case that are better upon accountability which than previ indicators to determine those mentioned. ously reliable be the
The first additional indicator would whether participation. confessed Max that a defendant asserts confession having the trier which will relieve of fact to consider inference presented. from can be should be drawn the facts As seen the facts evidence, judice, strong in sub confessions are direct the case while inferences may disputed. from a is often what be drawn confession there The second reliable additional indicator would whether the the participation planning was “evidence of defendant’s factor suggestion crime.” Max’s that this be limited instances where limit the would this “participated planning the crime” Here, applicability only gang leaders. defendant knew factor’s the Gangster Disciples shooting the “board” had met hours before going present a “war.” He also when Salter and there was to be somebody. that he to kill going told the members comprise are more than sufficient factor that These facts present planning of the crime. defendant was strong factor Max’s third rehable additional merits consideration. that, of a He absence of direct evidence defendant’s asserts crime, underly should whether the participation courts look to ing supreme He cites our spontaneous principal. crime was a act of (1999), Taylor, Ill. 2d 439 recent decisions in court’s Dennis, 181 2d 87 People v. Ill. ac- held that the defendant driver was not Taylor,
In court The defendant knew passenger. for the criminal acts of his countable street, driving While down passenger was armed. jumped passenger another car. The out defendant’s car almost hit shouting occupants car into a match with got defendant’s them, jumped back into the car. He fired a shot the other then juryA car, sped away. found and the defendant defendant’s shooting. reversing, supreme for the defendant accountable crime. spontaneous nature of the court focused on *15 drugs area where Dennis, drove a friend to an the defendant off, being dropped sold, narcotics. After purchase in order to were pas- rob them. The alley and decided to passenger saw two men an sped senger away. to the car and defendant then ran back defendant’s on account- jury robbery A convicted the defendant of armed based crime ability Taylor, and the court As was supreme reversed. robbery the defen- spontaneous spontaneous, event. Because the robbery could had the assist in the when he dant not have intent drug to the principal drove house. spontane-
As a should defendant not be held accountable for principal, spontane- act of the whether the crime principal’s ous determining proper ous act is a factor to when whether an- consider responsible person legally principal’s other should be held actions. last factor is no assistance to the defendant this case.
The murder act on certainly spontaneous part of Webb was not a Bailey. overwhelming of Salter and The evidence that defendant criminal knowledge design of the common to kill Webb. reasons, For all of the above stated we affirm defendant’s convic- degree tion and first sentence for murder.
Affirmed.
THEIS, J., concurs. REID,
JUSTICE dissenting: I dissent. To paraphrase the definition in Law Dictionary, Black’s rea, mens guilty which in Latin means “the mind” is defined as the prosecution state mind that prove must that a defendant had committing when a crime in secure a order to Black’s conviction. Law (7th 1999). Dictionary ed. It be can shown as either criminal intent or recklessness. Mens rea is the second essential of two ele of every ments crime at law, being reus, common the other the actus “the guilty that, or act.” The record largely demonstrates without exculpatory Williams, statement there would little or no evidence of his involvement other than his outside being seen building long place. the shooting before took 3d at 426- 28.
Williams
under
accountability theory.
was convicted of murder
accountability
pertinent
involving
issue of
is
cases
deaths
resulting
youth
from
gangs
groups.
conflicts between street
or informal
People Horton,
law,
v.
Williams said he was security sitting lying his “back on the also indicated he was guard leading questions by then assistant booth.” He was asked the. working se- Attorney State’s took the statement whether he was who But curity responded, really. at the time “Not incident. Williams around just position I I it.” asked if the there so did When normally sitting point people which he was was the where who work *17 Williams security are, responded security, work ain’t no you “when sitting standing by Supposed by down. to stand the door.” He was not the door.1 Williams, rank, Gangster Disciple gang
While no member with socializing booth, came, was near the official security Andrew Webb unarmed, girlfriend, building. to visit his another resident of the “It going up house, looked like he girlfriend’s get was to his but he didn’t behind corner, right chance to make it. As soon as he turned the the room, mailbox got that is where he killed.” argues allowing
Williams also that the trial court erred in testimony gang argues of the crimes expert. testimony He that the expert outweigh was so inflammatory and irrelevant as to probative value, already testimony since there had been considerable from Fannie Branch which would tend to establish the fact that there gang going was a war on Disciples between the and the Williams argues that, Black at the time of this murder. since part decision-making process Webb, he was not a of the to kill a discus- gang hierarchy completely unnecessary sion of the in this trial. was It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether admissible, reviewing evidence is relevant and and a court not re will determination verse the trial court’s a clear of discretion absent abuse resulting in prejudice Pursley, manifest to the defendant. v. 284 People (1996). App. 597, Ill. 3d 603 codefendant, Dwight Peal, standing by
1The record shows that his was clearly only pointed by eyewitness working door and one out an as secu rity. by being present Williams never mentioned in witness even lobby shooting. before or at the time of the three-part
There is a analysis determining when whether the gang expert testimony inappropriate. People admission of is v. 143, First, Davenport, 150-51 it must be person determined expert whether tendered as an is in fact an expert. Second, testimony Finally, must be relevant. the prej does outweigh probative udicial effect value?
Although deep widespread and public prejudice may against exist gangs, gang-related street necessarily evidence will not be excluded if it is Gonzalez, relevant admissible. v. People Ill. 2d (1991). Generally, gang-related evidence is admissible to show common purpose design, provide or to a motive for inexplicable an otherwise Smith, However, act. 141 Ill. 2d such evidence must charged. murder, relate to the crime only connected to upon based membership gang Williams his presence in lobby of his home that also turns out to be the scene of the crime. He was neither the shooter nor was he involved the decision that shooting. year resulted Here we have a 15 simply old who was killed, there at the time the victim looking not someone to make a gang name for himself or advance in the hierarchy by killing. Certain relating terminology gang evidence to the hierarchy of the probably appropriate, bring alleged but to by narcotics traffic gang clearly prejudicial clearly outweighed any was too pos probative sible value to have been allowed judge. the trial Because this closely case is so balanced I would found the have admission of the testimony “gang expert” plain to be error. majority For the Bloore, to have considered the testimony of Detective that this 15- year-old relatively new member somehow acted with common purpose design stretching and common criminal from the death of masterminds incarcerated, Andrew Webb to the currently would laughable practical if the effect commentary was not such a sad *18 high-risk of our majority state children. The has turned its back First, on certain socializing lobby facts. Williams was in the of his friends, place standing guard. Second, of residence with his not at best, knowledge input decision-making process in the involv ing the gang go virtually whether would to war was nonexistent. Did Gangster Disciples he and the Black know were war? Yes, did, private Army in the in the way he same United States does. say, That he hears is knows what has been told what he impute knowledge from his fellow soldiers. To of his seniors gang Williams, gang using inflammatory testimony expert of should, equate general and his facts to in problems Williams for the in shock getting gangs, were it not obvious bias favor of rid the efforts generally applaud the conscience. While I understand and of the enforcement to rid our streets legislature, of our courts law as to wear blinders so gangs, good I cannot conscience pestilence I believe Charles single trampled. child to be rights allow the even child, and trial. Had he at time of his arrest Williams is enforcement, told gun from or even been gun, fired the hidden law someone, to kill or kill I would blink specifically help that he was at him. eye proverbial an when the book was thrown case, deference to the standard Based on the facts of this with due review, guilty lapse judgment the defendant which while join assuming him he had real place, made the first matter, had a reasonable doubt of choice this court should have guilt Williams’ of the murder of Andrew Webb. COMPANY, INCORPORATED, al.,
MONTGOMERY WARD AND et Plaintiffs-Appellants, al., HOME INSURANCE COMPANYet Defendants-
Appellees. (5th Division) First District No. 1—99—0601 May 18, Opinion Rehearing August filed denied 2001. 2001.