People v. Banks, 1–13–1009.
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Citation | 67 N.E.3d 442,2016 IL App (1st) 131009 |
Docket Number | No. 1–13–1009.,1–13–1009. |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. David BANKS, Defendant–Appellant. |
Decision Date | 09 November 2016 |
Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Robert Hirschhorn, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Mary P. Needham, Amy M. Watroba, and Sheilah O'Grady–Krajniak, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 On the morning of September 8, 1990, the Chicago Fire Department responded to a fire in the basement of a multi-unit apartment building at 1058–1060 West Lawrence Avenue in Chicago. The bodies of a 55–year–old woman and a 79–year–old man and were discovered in the fire. The manner of death was determined to be homicide, and the fire was determined to have been caused by arson. A 12–year–old girl, T.C., reported having been raped and doused in fire accelerant by the offender in the basement but escaped to call for help.
¶ 2 Defendant David Banks was arrested after a 2005 "cold hit" in the DNA database. He was charged by indictment with 24 counts of first degree murder and one count of arson in regards to the double homicide and sexual assault. The indictments alleged that defendant murdered victims Irene Hedgpeth and Lawrence Soucy while committing the offenses of criminal sexual assault against T.C. and arson. A jury trial was held in 2013, after which the jury found defendant guilty of arson as well as the two murders. The trial court sentenced defendant to two terms of natural life imprisonment for the murders, to be served consecutively, and a term of 15 years' imprisonment for arson, also to be served consecutively. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in admitting DNA evidence at trial; (2) he was prejudiced by the "misuse" of his prior criminal record at trial; (3) he was prejudiced by comments by a testifying police officer regarding his invocation of his right to remain silent and his request for counsel; and (4) he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel for a series of alleged trial errors. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 4 Defense counsel filed several motions prior to trial2 including motions asking to suppress defendant's statement and motions relating to the introduction of DNA evidence at trial, asking to bar the introduction of other crimes evidence at trial, asking to be allowed further testing of the biological materials and databases for use at trial, and requesting greater latitude in the cross-examination of the State's DNA expert. Relevant to this appeal, defendant specifically sought (1) a Frye hearing (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) ) regarding whether DNA testing without the original controls or blanks was a scientifically valid methodology, (2) to exclude the DNA evidence where some of the material was inadvertently lost during testing in the laboratory, and (3) a search of the National DNA index system "for actual 9–loci pair matches that actually exist in the databases for the 9–loci identified in this case," and "for the frequency of each of the alleles identified in this case as they actually exist in the databases."
¶ 5 After a hearing, the trial court denied the request for a Frye hearing regarding the DNA testing without the original blanks, stating: "Frye does not apply once determined that the scientific method is generally accepted" and noting that The court explained that defendant's arguments regarding the DNA testing "goes to the weight, not the admissibility under Frye, " and that defendant's concerns could be addressed at trial through "vigorous cross-examination presentations of contrary evidence such as expert testimony." It stated: "The Frye standard applies only if scientific principle and technique or test offered is new or novel."
¶ 6 The court also held a hearing on defendant's motion for relief in conjunction with destruction of DNA or related evidence. The court denied the motion, finding that the DNA, which was inadvertently spilled during laboratory testing, was not materially exculpatory evidence and that it was not destroyed in bad faith. Additionally, the court admonished defense counsel that use of the term "destroyed" was not appropriate, stating,
¶ 7 Defendant's motion for a DNA database search was filed with the trial court on May 20, 2010. By that motion, defendant explained that he was arrested based on a "partial, 9 Loci DNA match to a buccal swab taken from him." The motion also stated:
Defendant specifically requested the court to order the State Police to search the following databases: using the following formulas:
This motion was held in abeyance.
¶ 8 On July 19, 2012, defense counsel withdrew the DNA database search motion, explaining to the court:
¶ 9 Defendant also filed a motion to suppress his statement, as well as a supplemental motion to suppress statements. At the end of the hearing, the trial court made extensive findings of fact, after which it denied the motion, noting:
Also prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to introduce evidence of a prior crime at trial, that is, a 1984 sexual assault, as relevant to the issues of defendant's propensity to commit sexual attacks and to motive and intent, as two of the murder counts on trial were predicated on the alleged sexual assault of T.C. After hearing arguments from the parties, the court allowed evidence of the prior sexual assault as evidence of defendant's propensity to commit sexual attacks, motive, and intent, as two of the murder counts on trial were predicated on the alleged sexual assault of T.C. Specifically, the court determined:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Williams
...2019 IL App (1st) 162999, ¶ 58, 442 Ill.Dec. 875, 160 N.E.3d 1055 ; People v. Banks , 2016 IL App (1st) 131009, ¶ 123, 409 Ill.Dec. 230, 67 N.E.3d 442. Matters of trial strategy are generally immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Manning , 241 Ill. 2d at 327, 350 Ill.Dec.......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...he did not preserve his challenge by raising the issue at trial. See People v. Banks , 2016 IL App (1st) 131009, ¶ 71, 409 Ill.Dec. 230, 67 N.E.3d 442 (to preserve an issue for appeal a defendant must object at trial and raise the issue in a posttrial motion). However, the State does not ar......
-
People v. Wilson, 1-14-3183
...at trial, the State misses its opportunity to cure any error." People v. Banks, 2016 IL App (1st) 131009, ¶ 71, 409 Ill.Dec. 230, 67 N.E.3d 442. Defendant did not object to the State's DNA evidence at trial, nor did he raise this issue in his posttrial motion. As a result, defendant deprive......
-
People v. Hamerlinck, 1–15–2759
...the evidence but to its foundation and thus is subject to forfeiture. People v. Banks , 2016 IL App (1st) 131009, ¶ 68, 409 Ill.Dec. 230, 67 N.E.3d 442 (citing People v. Woods , 214 Ill. 2d 455, 471, 293 Ill.Dec. 277, 828 N.E.2d 247 (2005) ). The application of forfeiture to such claims is ......