In re N.A.
| Citation | 125 N.E.3d 990,429 Ill.Dec. 876,2018 IL App (1st) 181332 |
| Decision Date | 24 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-18-1332,1-18-1332 |
| Parties | IN RE: N.A., a Minor (People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. N.A., Respondent-Appellant.) |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Jonathan Pilsner, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Veronica Calderon Malavia, and Kathryn A. Schierl, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Respondent N.A. was adjudicated delinquent of armed robbery ( 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2016) ) and sentenced to three years' probation. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the robbery victim's eyewitness identification testimony and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. We affirm.
¶ 3 On December 9, 2017, at around 8:10 p.m., victim Cynthia Lett backed her car into her garage. Her nine year old daughter, A.Y., sat next to her. As the victim opened her car door, two men walked into the garage and positioned themselves on either side of her car. Still seated, she looked up and saw the man's face. He pointed a gun at her and demanded her to "hand over everything." She gave the man her purse and cell phone. The two men left and the victim called the police.
¶ 4 On January 8, 2018, Chicago police detective Spiro Kaldis went to the victim's home and showed her two photo arrays. She signed a photo advisory form indicating that that she did not want to be audio or video recorded and understood she had no obligation to identify anyone. The victim identified respondent N.A. in the first photo array as the man who robbed her at gun point on the night of December 9, 2017. She did not identify anyone in the second photo array.
¶ 5 Two days later, on January 10, 2018, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship against respondent. He was 17 years old when the alleged offense was committed. The petition charged him with one count of armed robbery ( 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2016) ), one count of aggravated robbery (Id. § 18-1(b) ), one count of robbery (Id. § 18-1(a) ) and one count of theft ( 720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(3) (West 2016) ). Respondent did not file a motion to suppress the identification and his case proceeded to trial.
¶ 6 The State called two witnesses at trial. The first witness, victim Cynthia Lett, testified that she and her daughter attended a birthday party on December 9, 2017 and returned home around 8:10 p.m. She backed her car into the detached garage behind her house and, as she opened the driver side door to get out, two men walked into the garage. They took positions on either side of the car.
¶ 7 The victim looked up at the man from her seated position. He stood two feet away on the other side of her car door. Because the door was ajar, the car's dome light activated. A "dim" garage light had turned on and there was some additional "ambient lighting from the alley." The victim testified that she "immediately" saw the man had a gun. It was a "small pistol-type gun," dark in color and he held it "close to his body." From her vantage point, the gun was pointed "pretty much to [her] face."
¶ 8 He was African-American and wore a "nondescript," "dark colored sweatshirt" with the hood on, but she could see his face and "short hair." After he demanded, "give me everything" and "don't move," the victim surrendered her purse and cell phone. The two men left. The victim called the police.
¶ 9 Police arrived at the victim's house and she gave them a description of the two men. She described them as very "nondescript" because of the dark clothing, they appeared to be 20 years old and she guessed that their heights were between five feet, 10 and 11 inches. A month later, she met with Detective Kaldis at her house.
¶ 10 The victim testified that, on January 8, 2018, Detective Kaldis showed her two sets of photographs. Before viewing the photographs, she signed a photo lineup advisory form indicating that she did not want to be audio or video recorded. The victim understood she did not have to identify anyone. She identified respondent in the first set of photographs as the man who robbed her on the night of December 8, 2017. She did not identify anyone from the second set.
¶ 11 On cross-examination, the victim testified that her focus during the robbery was directed at respondent's gun. She indicated that the alleged robbery lasted five to seven minutes and that respondent did not speak with an accent when he voiced his demands. On re-cross examination, the victim testified that she had "no problem at all" seeing respondent's face or identifying him in court. She testified,
¶ 12 The State called Detective Kaldis as its second witness. He testified that he went to the victim's house on January 8, 2018 to show her two photo arrays he had prepared. He was an independent administrator, meaning that he had "no knowledge of the case or who the suspect may be in the photo array." The first photo array he showed the victim contained a photograph of respondent. The victim identified respondent in the first photo array, circled his photograph and initialed it. She had no difficulty identifying respondent, but could not identify the other offender from the second photo array.
¶ 13 On cross-examination, Detective Kaldis testified that he did not video or audio record the victim during the identification procedure. He was not equipped with a body camera when he went to her house. Detective Kaldis testified that, if the victim consented to a video recording, he would have taken her to the police station as he did not have the means record the victim at her home. The State rested its case.
¶ 14 Respondent called only one witness: arresting officer Sean Markham. Officer Markham testified that he arrested respondent and, during the process, learned that he was born in Ghana. When asked whether respondent spoke with an accent, Officer Markham testified, "he could have an accent, yeah," "[if] he spoke right now, I could probably hear an accent." The defense rested its case.
¶ 15 The record indicates that the victim's daughter, A.Y., who sat on the passenger side of the car during the robbery, was shown two photo arrays on the same day her mother identified respondent. The lineup advisory form signed by A.Y. indicated that she did not make a positive identification of the armed robber, but instead, stated that four individuals looked like or may have been the offender who approached her mother. Respondent's counsel did not present A.Y. as a witness or elicit any testimony regarding her nonidentification at trial.
¶ 16 The trial court found that "based on the victim's adequate opportunity to observe [respondent] at the time of the robbery" the State had proven the armed robbery ( 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2016) ) beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court merged the remaining counts, entered a finding of best interest in wardship and sentenced respondent to three years' probation. He appeals his delinquency adjudication.
¶ 18 The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the victim's eyewitness identification testimony was sufficient to sustain respondent's delinquency adjudication beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) whether respondent's trial counsel was ineffective.
¶ 19 The sum total of the State's evidence in this case was the victim's eyewitness identification. Respondent challenges that identification as unreliable and insufficient to support his delinquency adjudication beyond a reasonable doubt. In the alternative, he asks us to grant him a new trial because his counsel's failure to elicit any testimony about A.Y.'s nonidentification was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial. We address each argument in turn.
¶ 20 The reasonable doubt standard applies to delinquency proceedings. In re J.J. , 2016 IL App (1st) 160379, ¶ 20, 407 Ill.Dec. 151, 62 N.E.3d 1073. Therefore, we review the sufficiency of the evidence presented at respondent's trial in the light most favorable to the State and answer the question of whether any rational trier of fact could have found the identity of the perpetrator and the essential elements of armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Christian W. , 2017 IL App (1st) 162897, ¶ 24, 416 Ill.Dec. 794, 86 N.E.3d 1079 ; 720 ILCS 5/18-1, 18-2(a)(2) (West 2016) (a person commits armed robbery when he knowingly takes property from the person or presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force and carries on or about his person or is otherwise armed with a firearm during the robbery).
¶ 21 It is not our function to retry respondent or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court on questions of witness credibility, the appropriate weight to give the testimony, reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence or evidentiary inconsistencies. People v. Wheeler , 226 Ill. 2d 92, 114, 313 Ill.Dec. 1, 871 N.E.2d 728 (2007) ; People v. Jackson , 2017 IL App (1st) 142879, ¶ 23, 415 Ill.Dec. 249, 82 N.E.3d 194 ; People v. Ross , 229 Ill. 2d 255, 272, 322 Ill.Dec. 574, 891 N.E.2d 865 (2008). The trial court's findings are, however, not conclusive and respondent's delinquency adjudication will not stand if the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of his guilt. People v. Siguenza-Brito , 235 Ill. 2d 213, 225, 336 Ill.Dec. 223, 920 N.E.2d 233 (2009).
¶ 22 A single eyewitness identification of the accused is sufficient to sustain a conviction if the witness viewed the accused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. T.R. (In re T.R.)
...of reasonableness and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for the error, the result would have been different." In re N.A. , 2018 IL App (1st) 181332, ¶ 40, 429 Ill.Dec. 876, 125 N.E.3d 990. Under the second prong, the question is whether counsel's deficient performance rendered t......
-
People v. T.B. (In re T.B.)
...procedure, and (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification. Biggers , 409 U.S. at 199, 93 S.Ct. 375 ; In re N.A. , 2018 IL App (1st) 181332, ¶ 22, 429 Ill.Dec. 876, 125 N.E.3d 990. We will consider each factor. ¶ 45 The first factor, the witness's opportunity to view res......