People v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 10 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 3-17-0829 |
| Citation | 177 N.E.3d 19,448 Ill.Dec. 513,2020 IL App (3d) 170829 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley M. ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Peter A. Carusona, and Amber Hopkins-Reed, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.
Jodi Hoos, State's Attorney, of Peoria (Patrick Delfino, Thomas D. Arado, and Nicholas A. Atwood, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Defendant, Stanley M. Alexander, appeals his conviction for aggravated battery. Defendant argues that (1) he was deprived of his right to present a defense where two witnesses were not permitted to testify that Ricky Alexander (Ricky) told them that he committed the offense rather than defendant, (2) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to seek a continuance to investigate defendant's report that Ricky confessed to committing the offense in a recorded jail call, (3) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument, and (4) the circuit court committed reversible error during the preliminary Krankel inquiry (see People v. Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984) ). We reverse and remand.
¶ 3 Defendant was charged with aggravated battery ( 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2016)) for shooting Odell Robinson with a handgun.
¶ 4 The State filed a motion in limine requesting that the court prohibit the defense from introducing the testimony of Jarita Sampson and Hermanda Alexander (Hermanda) that Ricky admitted to them that he was the driver of the vehicle involved in the incident and that he shot Robinson. The motion alleged that these statements were inadmissible hearsay. The motion stated that the statements were not admissible as statements against interest pursuant to Illinois Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011) because there was an insufficient basis for their admissibility.
¶ 5 A hearing was held on the State's motion. The State argued that Sampson's and Hermanda's testimony should be barred because there was not sufficient evidence corroborating the trustworthiness of Ricky's statements to them. The court ruled that the testimony would be excluded unless the defense could later present evidence of the trustworthiness of the statements.
¶ 6 The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Robinson testified that on the day of the incident, he was talking to Seldrick Carpenter and a few other individuals on a street. A white vehicle pulled up to the curb. Robinson approached the vehicle and saw defendant sitting in the passenger seat. Defendant was in a relationship with Wendolyn Williams, the mother of Robinson's son. Robinson did not recognize the driver. Robinson greeted defendant and saw that defendant had a pistol. The driver also had a gun. Defendant frowned at Robinson and shot him in the penis. Robinson then ran up the street to wait for medical assistance. Later that day, Robinson identified defendant in a photographic lineup as the person who shot him. Copies of the photographic lineup and forms that Robinson had signed before making the identification were admitted into evidence. Robinson testified that he had to use a catheter for two months as a result of his injuries.
¶ 7 Carpenter testified that he was speaking with Robinson and several other individuals on a street on the day of the incident. A white vehicle drove up and stopped near them. Carpenter did not know the person who was driving the vehicle. Defendant was the passenger. Robinson approached the vehicle. Defendant exited the vehicle to fight Robinson. Before defendant reached the back of the vehicle, shots were fired. Carpenter did not see defendant with a gun, and he did not know whether defendant or the driver shot Robinson. Carpenter could not recall telling a police officer on the day of the incident that the driver reclined in his seat and that defendant shot past the driver and hit Robinson. Carpenter acknowledged that he had "insinuated" to defense counsel the day before the trial that the driver must have been the shooter because defendant was outside the vehicle when the shooting started. Carpenter maintained that he did not see who the shooter was. Carpenter acknowledged that he had previously selected defendant out of a photographic lineup.
¶ 8 Detective Craig Williams testified that Robinson selected defendant as the shooter from a photographic lineup on the day of the shooting. Williams presented the photographic lineup to Robinson while he was being treated at the hospital. The presentation of the photographic lineup was video and audio recorded. The State labeled the recording as exhibit No. 3 and moved to admit it. Defense counsel did not object to the admission of the video, and it was played for the jury. While the video was being played, defense counsel requested to approach the bench, and the video was paused. A discussion between counsel and the court was held off the record. The court then stated:
The video then continued to play.
¶ 9 In the video, Robinson was lying shirtless in a hospital bed. He was visible from the chest up. Detective Williams discussed the photographic lineup with Robinson, and Robinson made a selection. The photographic lineup itself was not visible in the video. At one point, a medical provider entered the room and told Robinson that they would need to insert a catheter. Robinson appeared to be reluctant. The provider told Robinson that he had to insert the catheter to make sure that Robinson's urethra would be okay. The provider said that if he did not insert the catheter and Robinson's urethra was injured
, Robinson could have lifelong problems. The provider said that if they did not take care of the problem now, Robinson might have to have a metal rod inserted into his penis in the future. Robinson had tears in his eyes. At certain points in the video, medical workers could be seen walking behind Robinson's bed.
¶ 10 Detective Clint Rezac testified that he obtained surveillance video footage from a nearby car wash for the day and time of the shooting. The video recording showed the vehicle involved in the incident was visible in the distance in the corner of the screen. Rezac testified that a person was visible running away from the vehicle. This occurred in the distance and was difficult to discern from viewing the video.
¶ 11 Rezac interviewed Carpenter in connection with the shooting. A video recording of Rezac's interview with Carpenter was admitted into evidence and played for the jury. In the video, Carpenter said that the driver and passenger both had guns. Carpenter said he did not know which one shot first. Carpenter then said the passenger was attempting to exit the car and fired the first shot. Rezac asked if the passenger shot over the driver, and Carpenter said yes.
¶ 12 Defense counsel requested that the court revisit its ruling that Sampson and Hermanda would not be able to testify as to Ricky's out-of-court statements indicating that he was the shooter. Defense counsel argued that evidence had been presented during the State's case-in-chief that both defendant and the driver had guns, which corroborated the hearsay statements that Ricky shot Robinson. Defense counsel also noted that Carpenter admitted that he had told defense counsel that the driver must have been the shooter. The court adhered to its initial ruling.
¶ 13 The jury found defendant guilty of aggravated battery.
¶ 14 Defendant filed a pro se motion for a new trial alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant also filed a motion for a new trial through counsel.
¶ 15 Defendant filed an amended pro se motion for a new trial, which included numerous claims. The motion included several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Robinson's video-recorded statement, move for a mistrial due to the prejudicial nature of Robinson's video-recorded statement at the hospital, and introduce a recording of a phone call between defendant and Ricky where Ricky admitted to committing the offense.
¶ 16 The court conducted a preliminary inquiry into defendant's pro se claims of ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045, and its progeny. Regarding defendant's claim that defense counsel should have objected to the admission of Robinson's video-recorded statement, the court stated: With regard to the claim that counsel should have moved for a mistrial based on the prejudicial nature of the video recording of Robinson's hospital interview, the court stated: "This is actually a legitimate argument to make." Defendant stated that he did not believe there was any need for the video and that it prejudiced the jury in favor of Robinson. The court replied:
¶ 17 The court proceeded to address defendant's claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to present a recorded jail call between defendant and Ricky in which Ricky confessed to shooting Robinson. The court asked defense counsel if defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...of ineffective assistance of counsel, the circuit court should conduct an inquiry into the factual basis of the claim. People v. Alexander , 2020 IL App (3d) 170829, ¶ 23, 448 Ill.Dec. 513, 177 N.E.3d 19. A pro se defendant may raise the claim orally or through a written motion, a letter, o......