People v. Adamson

Decision Date02 July 2020
Docket NumberNO. 4-18-0631,4-18-0631
Citation2020 IL App (4th) 180631 -U
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAWN D. ADAMSON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Coles County

No. 16CF242

Honorable Matthew L. Sullivan, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court.

Justice Harris concurred in the judgment.

Justice Turner specially concurred in part and dissented in part.

ORDER

Held: The appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon but reversed and remanded for a new trial on the remaining counts, finding there was no plain error in the admission of witness Shafer's and witness Vasquez's prior statements and no plain error in the admission of witness Perry's statements. However, defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the aforementioned statements.

¶ 1 Defendant, Shawn D. Adamson, was charged with two counts of first degree murder, one count of attempt (armed robbery) (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 18-2 (West 2016)), one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/8-2(a), 18-2 (West 2016)), and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2016)). The first count of first degree murder alleged defendant, while attempting to commit the forcible felony of armed robbery, proximately caused the death of Ciara Faires (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West 2016)). The second count of first degree murder alleged defendant committed first degree murder while committing the forcible felony of mob action that proximately caused the death of Ciara Faires (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West 2016)). Both first degree murder charges contained a special enhancement of 15 years for committing the offense while armed with a firearm (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(d)(i) (West 2016)) and an enhancement of 20 years for personally discharging a firearm during the commission of the offense (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(d)(ii) (West 2016)). The charges allege defendant was present where shots were fired by a third party which resulted in the death of Ciara Faires.

¶ 2 After a week-long trial, the jury convicted defendant on all counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to 33 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections with an enhanced 20-year sentence for personally discharging a firearm during the commission of first degree murder and a 10-year concurrent sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court erred by admitting witness Shafer's prior trial testimony into evidence, after his refusal to testify, in violation of defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him; (2) the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements of witness Vasquez; (3) the trial court erred by admitting irrelevant and highly prejudicial other bad-acts evidence through the testimony of witness Perry; and (4) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 During the morning of June 16, 2016, Todd Shafer and Brett Magana obtained firearms from defendant at defendant's house for the purpose of robbing Justin Davis of marijuana and cash. Shafer and Magana backed out of committing the robbery and spent the next 40 hours eluding defendant in fear of perceived retribution for keeping the firearms after failing to complete the robbery. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on June 17, 2016, Shafer and hisgirlfriend, victim Ciara Faires, packed their belongings with the intent to travel to Texas. Before leaving, they arrived at Dion Dixon's apartment, where Ciara and Shafer began to argue about their plan to flee. During the argument, Dixon tossed Ciara's belongings outside, and Shafer pushed her outside and locked the door while he and Dixon continued arguing. Defendant and his cohorts, Kevin Johnson and Matthew Cook, were outside looking for Shafer to retrieve the firearm he never returned. Defendant was allegedly armed with a handgun. Johnson asked Ciara to text Shafer to come outside. The State was allowed to introduce testimony from Shafer's previous trial concerning his account of what happened next. Shafer testified at his trial that after a loud "bang" at the door, he looked outside, saw other people standing next to the victim, saw a silver revolver, and saw a "flash" and heard a "pop." Shafer, still possessing the firearm from the botched robbery, fired two shots through the door, one of which killed the victim, his girlfriend. Dixon testified he was not sure if he saw a gun when he looked outside but that Shafer fired a shot through the door, and they both ran to Dixon's bedroom, where Dixon called 911. Ciara died in the early morning hours of June 18, 2016.

¶ 5 In February 2017, the State filed motions in limine seeking to admit certain hearsay statements relating to defendant's attempts to retrieve firearms from Magana and Shafer prior to the shooting and "other-crimes" evidence. The State argued the other-crimes evidence demonstrated a continuing narrative of events that led to the shooting death of the victim and "explains aspects of the charges, the event, and the behavior of the defendant which would otherwise be implausible or inexplicable." The evidence of other crimes or bad acts sought to be admitted consisted of events that unfolded after providing firearms to Magana and Shafer for use in an armed robbery. The State argued, upon learning of Magana and Shafer backing out of the armed robbery, defendant and his coconspirators then attempted to retrieve the firearms. TheState outlined various statements it sought to admit in order to show the course of conduct of defendant and others while attempting to retrieve the firearms.

¶ 6 In February 2018, the trial court held a status hearing to discuss pending pretrial motions on file, including the admission of other-crimes evidence. The defense did not object to any of the State's motions in limine at that time, indicating, "there is no objection, Judge. I guess when we get there, there may be one. It is going to kind of depend on the witness testimony. So, at this point, I don't have an argument, but that could potentially change. I just want to be up front with the Court."

¶ 7 A. Acknowledgment Hearing

¶ 8 The State planned to call a witness, James Shafer, to testify. Approximately nine days before, Shafer was convicted of first degree murder of Ciara Faires at his own trial where he testified on his own behalf. The State was uncertain if Shafer would cooperate or answer questions, so it asked the trial court to conduct an acknowledgment hearing outside the presence of the jury to ascertain whether Shafer would acknowledge making any of the statements he made during direct examination at his trial. See People v. Brothers, 2015 IL App (4th) 130644, ¶¶ 74-75, 39 N.E.3d 1101. The court had already conducted such a hearing when, in the midst of his testimony, another codefendant, Kevin Johnson, decided to stop answering questions during cross-examination. The State confirmed with Shafer that he was provided use immunity for any incriminating statements he may make, and the State had agreed there would be no additional charges. See 725 ILCS 5/106-2.5 (West 2016) (The State can give witness use immunity if witness's testimony is necessary and the witness is otherwise likely to invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination.). Shafer informed the court he would not beanswering any questions posed to him even after the court explained the possibility of being found in direct criminal contempt for refusing to answer questions under oath.

¶ 9 During the acknowledgment hearing, the State began asking Shafer the questions he had been asked on direct examination during his own trial and asked about the responses he gave at that time. Aside from several preliminary questions about the grant of use immunity and agreement there would be no further charges, Shafer refused to answer. The prosecutor continued to ask Shafer over 188 questions posed to him during his trial and asked him about the corresponding answer he provided. During this exchange, Shafer's response was, "I am not answering any more questions," or something similar thereto. During the exchange, the trial court instructed Shafer to answer the prosecutor's questions, but Shafer refused.

¶ 10 After refusing to answer the State's questions on direct examination, defense counsel asked him three or four questions on cross-examination, which Shafer also refused to answer, responding in the same manner. After doing so, the trial court stated, "Mr. Shafer, you understand that I am directing you to answer those questions, correct?" Shafer responded, "I understand, but they should have thought of that before they took my life away from me." After Shafer again confirmed he would not respond to any more questions, the court found him in direct criminal contempt.

¶ 11 During the trial, but outside the presence of the jury, the prosecutor and defense counsel provided the trial court with a joint proposed instruction to be read to the jury prior to the introduction of Shafer's trial testimony. The parties agreed to have Shafer's prior trial testimony, on both direct and cross-examination, read into the record by the court reporter. When asked, defense counsel stated it was his request the instruction be read to the jury. Before agreeing to accept the proposed instruction, the court inquired whether defense counsel conferred withdefendant about proceeding in such a fashion. Defense counsel said he had and defendant agreed. Counsel then commented that even if defendant had not agreed, defense counsel would intend to proceed in this manner as part of the defense's trial strategy. The court then asked defendant if counsel...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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