People v. Belknap, 3–11–0833.

Citation1 N.E.3d 1061,2013 IL App (3d) 110833,377 Ill.Dec. 174
Decision Date19 November 2013
Docket NumberNo. 3–11–0833.,3–11–0833.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel BELKNAP, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

2013 IL App (3d) 110833
1 N.E.3d 1061
377 Ill.Dec.
174

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Daniel BELKNAP, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 3–11–0833.

Appellate Court of Illinois,
Third District.

Nov. 19, 2013.


[1 N.E.3d 1063]


Andrew J. Boyd (argued), State Appellate Defender's Office, Ottawa, for appellant.

Gary F. Gnidovec (argued), State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, Ottawa, Edwin A. Parkinson, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, Springfield, for the People.


OPINION

Justice CARTER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 After his convictions for first degree murder and a related offense were reversed by this court and remanded for a new trial, defendant, Daniel Belknap, was found guilty again by a jury of first degree murder and was sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first degree murder; (2) he was denied a fair trial because of the trial court's failure to strictly comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. May 1, 2007) in admonishing the potential jurors during voir dire; and (3) he was denied a fair trial because of certain improper remarks made by the prosecutor in opening statement and in closing argument. For the reasons that follow, we agree with defendant's second argument and, therefore, we reverse defendant's conviction and remand this case for a new trial.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 On Sunday, September 10, 2006, at about 1 p.m., five-year-old Silven Yocum was found seizing in her bed at defendant's home, where she and her mother, Erin Yocum, were staying. Silven was rushed to McDonough District Hospital (MDH) in Macomb and then airlifted to St. Francis Hospital (St. Francis) in Peoria. She never regained consciousness and died a week later at St. Francis. An autopsy revealed that Silven had been murdered and that she had died from blunt force trauma to the head. Based upon the time frame established, the only person who could have committed the crime was defendant or Silven's mother.1

¶ 4 In December 2007, more than 15 months after the crime was committed, defendant was charged with Silven's murder. He was later found guilty by a jury in McDonough County of first degree murder and endangering the life of a child in connection with Silven's death and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 30 years and 10 years. We reversed defendant's convictions on appeal, finding that the evidence in the case was closely balanced and that as a matter of first-prong plain error, defendant was denied a fair trial when the trial court failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 431(b) in admonishing potential jurors. People v. Belknap, 396 Ill.App.3d 183, 204–07, 335 Ill.Dec. 420, 918 N.E.2d 1233 (2009)( Belknap I ). Because we concluded that the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we remanded the case

[1 N.E.3d 1064]

for a new trial, rather than reversing defendant's conviction outright. Id.

¶ 5 On remand, because of pretrial publicity, the case was transferred to Warren County on motion of defendant. The second jury trial began in August 2011 and lasted about a week. During the beginning of the jury selection process, the trial court informed the entire pool of prospective jurors as to the four principles contained in Rule 431(b)—that defendant was presumed innocent of the charge against him; that the State had to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; that defendant was not required to offer any evidence on his own behalf; and that if defendant chose not to testify, the jury could not hold that against him (see Ill. S.Ct. R. 431(b) (eff. May 1, 2007)). The voir dire was conducted in panels of six prospective jurors and the trial court went through six of those panels before the entire jury and the alternate jurors were selected. With each panel, the trial court admonished the potential jurors as a group as to all four of the Rule 431(b) principles and asked the panel members as a group whether they all agreed with, accepted (or had any difficulty accepting), or had any quarrel with, those principles, varying the language that it used from time to time. At no time, however, did the trial court inquire of any of the panels whether the panel members understood the Rule 431(b) principles. After the jury had been selected and sworn and just prior to opening statements, the trial court provided the jury with some basic instructions. As part of those instructions, the trial court again informed the jury of the four Rule 431(b) principles.

¶ 6 During its opening statement, the State made certain remarks which defendant claims on appeal constituted an improper attempt by the prosecution to elicit the jury's sympathy for the victim. Those remarks were not objected to by the defense.

¶ 7 After opening statements had concluded, the State called Larry Leasman as its first witness.2 Leasman testified that during the early morning hours of Saturday, September 9, 2006, at about 2 a.m., he stopped by defendant's house in rural McDonough County outside of Macomb on his way home from work after he saw defendant's light on. Defendant was working in the garage. Leasman stayed about an hour and smoked methamphetamine (meth) with defendant. After Leasman was there a short period of time, Erin Yocum came into the garage. Erin said that she had been at the Wal–Mart store in Macomb. Leasman did not remember whether Erin had smoked any meth with them and did not see Silven Yocum (Erin's daughter) at all while he was there.

¶ 8 Erin Yocum testified for the State that she was Silven's mother and that she was 36 years old at the time of trial. In February 2006, Erin started dating defendant while she and Silven lived in Macomb. Later that summer, Erin and Silven spent almost every night at defendant's house. During that time period, both Erin and defendant were using meth. When summer was ending and school had started, during what turned out to be the last week of Silven's life, Erin and Silven moved into defendant's house on a more permanent basis and Erin moved Silven's bed and toys to defendant's house. At the time of Silven's death in September 2006, Silven was five years old and was attending kindergarten at a local school.

[1 N.E.3d 1065]

¶ 9 On Friday, September 8, 2006, Erin and Silven were spending the night at defendant's house. At about midnight, Erin left defendant's house to go to the Wal–Mart and HyVee stores in Macomb to get some magazines. Silven stayed at defendant's house with defendant and was asleep in her bedroom. When Erin returned, defendant was in the garage with Larry Leasman. Defendant and Leasman were smoking meth. Erin did not know Leasman and did not smoke meth with defendant and Leasman in the garage that night. After a short while, Erin went to bed and defendant stayed out in the garage.

¶ 10 Erin woke up at about 6 a.m. Defendant was still out in the garage and Silven was asleep in her bed. Erin went out to the garage and Silven followed her out there a short while later. At some point before 11 a.m., Erin and Silven painted a dog house that was behind the garage. While Erin was painting, Silven sat on Erin's lap and was very clingy that entire day. Erin believed that Silven was getting sick. Defendant asked Silven to come into the house with him and to help him make breakfast. Silven cried and did not want to go with defendant. Defendant took Silven into the house and he and Silven made breakfast, which they all ate. When Erin went into the house after defendant and Silven had made breakfast together, she did not notice anything wrong with Silven, other than Silven was feeling sluggish and tired. Silven was not complaining about any head injuries or holding her head in the back area, and she was not bleeding.

¶ 11 After breakfast, defendant took Silven for a ride on his four wheeler. Later in the day, Silven was not happy and had no one to play with so Erin went to her brother Erik's house to pick up Erik's son, Brett, so that Silven would have someone with whom to play. Brett was a year older than Silven. Silven did not go with Erin to pick up Brett. Rather, because Silven was still not feeling well, Erin had Silven lie down in bed and watch a movie. When Erin returned with Brett about 45 minutes later, Silven was still lying in her bed but was not asleep. Nothing appeared to be wrong with Silven at that time, other than it seemed that Silven was not feeling well. Silven was conscious, was not bleeding, and was not complaining of any head injuries, and Erin did not notice anything unusual. Brett tried to get Silven to play on the trampoline at defendant's house with him, but Silven did not feel like playing. Brett jumped on the trampoline, and Silven sat in a chair that defendant brought to the backyard for her and watched Brett jump.

¶ 12 At some point between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., Erin's brother, Erik, who was Brett's father, came to defendant's house to pick up Brett and to take Brett to a birthday party at a pizza place in Macomb. Silven went with Erik to drop off Brett. A short while later, after he had dropped off Brett, Erik returned with Silven. Erik commented that Silven did not seem to have an appetite that night, which was unusual for Silven. Silven was holding onto Erik. Defendant took Silven and put her to bed, and Erik left.

¶ 13 Shortly thereafter, at about 7:30 p.m., Erik called and told Erin that the tire had fallen off of his truck while he was on the way to pick up Brett from the party. Erin left to pick up Erik. At that point, Silven was still awake. Defendant said that he would take Silven, and Erin handed Silven to defendant. When Erin returned with Erik about 20 minutes later, Silven was in bed. Erin never saw Silven awake again after that point. Defendant and Erik went to fix Erik's truck and were able to get it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Belknap
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 18, 2014
    ...The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, reversed defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial. 2013 IL App (3d) 110833, 377 Ill.Dec. 174, 1 N.E.3d 1061. This court granted the State's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S.Ct. R. 315 (eff. July 1, 2013).¶ 2 BACKGROUND¶ 3 This......
  • People v. Sebby
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 27, 2015
    ...to deviate from what it understood to be established precedent without a more definitive statement from the supreme court. People v. Belknap, 2013 IL App (3d) 110833, ¶ 92 n. 3, 377 Ill.Dec. 174, 1 N.E.3d 1061. Under the appellate court Belknap decision, if defendant can show the evidence i......
  • People v. Shenault
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 23, 2014
    ...the defendant's trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Belknap, 2013 IL App (3d) 110833, ¶ 87, 377 Ill.Dec. 174, 1 N.E.3d 1061,appeal allowed, No. 117094, 379 Ill.Dec. 16, 5 N.E.3d 1125 (Ill. Mar. 26, 2014). Defend......
  • People v. Belknap
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 26, 2014
    ...Ill.Dec. 16Peoplev.Daniel BelknapNO. 117094Supreme Court of IllinoisMARCH TERM, 2014March 26, 2014 Lower Court: 2013 IL App (3d) 110833, 377 Ill.Dec. 174, 1 N.E.3d 1061 Disposition:...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT