People v. Brown

• Decision Date: 23 June 2017
• Docket Number: No. 1-14-2197.,1-14-2197.
• Citation: 82 N.E.3d 148,2017 IL App (1st) 142197
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel BROWN, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2017 IL App (1st) 142197

82 N.E.3d 148

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Daniel BROWN, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1-14-2197.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

Opinion filed June 23, 2017

Rehearing denied July 28, 2017

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Rachel M. Kindstrand, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Eric Leafblad, and Janet C. Mahoney, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant Daniel Brown was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder, with a finding that he personally discharged the firearm that caused the victim's death. Defendant was sentenced to prison terms of 45 years for murder and 45 years for personally discharging the firearm that caused the death, to be served consecutively.

¶ 2 On appeal, he contends (1) the trial court committed reversible error during voir dire by failing to inquire when a juror indicated a lack of understanding concerning a fundamental principle about the burden of proof; (2) the trial court erred when it admitted a surveillance recording without adequate foundation and permitted a detective to offer impermissible lay opinion identification testimony concerning the recording, and defense counsel was ineffective by failing to object to this evidence; (3) the trial court erred by admitting irrelevant and highly prejudicial DNA evidence, the State's closing argument concerning the DNA evidence was misleading, and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the DNA evidence; (4) the statutory firearm sentencing enhancement is unconstitutionally vague, and the trial court imposed an arbitrary and excessive sentence; and (5) the mittimus should be corrected to reflect one murder conviction and a 90-year prison sentence.

¶ 3 We find that the trial court's erroneous voir dire inquiry of one venire member concerning a Zehr principle and admission of a law enforcement officer's lay opinion identification testimony were not so serious as to deny defendant a fair trial. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the surveillance recording and DNA evidence. Furthermore, the statutory firearm sentencing enhancement is not unconstitutionally vague, and defendant's sentence was not arbitrary or excessive sentence.

¶ 4 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court and order the mittimus corrected to reflect one conviction of murder and a 90-year term of imprisonment.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 This case arose from the fatal shooting of Eddie Coleman on East 79th Street in Chicago at about 10:38 p.m. on March 6, 2012. Eyewitnesses identified defendant Daniel Brown as the shooter, and he was charged by indictment with first degree murder. A jury trial was held in April and May 2014.

¶ 7 The State's evidence showed that on the date of the offense the victim was visiting his aunts, Mayblelene and Kathleen Coleman, who both lived on the 3000 block of East 79th Street. At about 10 p.m., the victim and his girlfriend, Taheerah Abdullah, walked half of a block to a store. They went inside, and the victim spoke to some men from the neighborhood, including defendant. Abdullah had known defendant for about a week and seen him a couple of times. Abdullah heard defendant repeatedly state, "[W]hatever is gonna happen, man, is gonna happen." The victim and defendant went outside into the parking lot. Eventually, Abdullah followed them. Defendant and the victim talked and their demeanor was "kind of hostile." Abdullah stood apart from them and did not hear everything they said. Abdullah was concerned and telephoned the home of the victim's aunt Mayblelene. Abdullah spoke with Mayblelene's daughter, Natasha Coleman, who then walked to the store.

¶ 8 Abdullah exchanged words with a woman who was with defendant, and the woman spat on Abdullah. Natasha arrived at the scene and spoke with Abdullah. Eventually, the victim joined them. They left the parking lot and headed toward Mayblelene's house. They spoke to police officers in the area about the parking lot incident, and the officers told them to go home and telephone the police to report the matter. Natasha walked toward her mother's house, followed by Abdullah and then the victim. When Natasha and Abdullah arrived at the house, the victim was no longer with them. Natasha and Abdullah went inside. Abdullah called the police and reported the parking lot incident, and Natasha sat at the dining room table.

¶ 9 Abdullah testified that when she returned to the porch to look for the victim, she heard a gunshot and saw the victim running down the street with defendant running behind him. Defendant's arm was outstretched and pointed towards the victim. Abdullah heard another gunshot followed by the victim yelling, "Ouch." Abdullah ran inside the house because she feared defendant would come after her. She heard about three more gunshots. When the gunshots ceased, Abdullah went outside and saw the victim lying motionless on the ground. His aunt Kathleen Coleman was with him.

¶ 10 An ambulance arrived and transported the victim to the hospital. He died from multiple gunshot wounds

. He had been shot three times, once in the left side of the back, once in the upper right chest, and once in the left arm, with no evidence of close-range firing. At the time of his death, he had alcohol, cocaine, and benzoylecgonine, a breakdown of cocaine, in his system. He was 43 years old, six feet tall, and weighed 200 pounds.

¶ 11 Kathleen Coleman testified that she went outside around 10 p.m. to look for the victim because she had agreed to give him a ride home. She drove her car around the block and parked in front of her house. She exited her car and saw the victim running through a gangway with defendant chasing him. Kathleen testified that the area was well lit, and she could see defendant's face even though he wore a purple hoodie over his head. Kathleen testified she had known defendant for a couple of years due to his previous relationship with a girl in the area. Kathleen observed defendant shoot the victim in the back. The victim screamed, "Ouch," ran a short distance and collapsed in the middle of the street. Defendant was running so close behind the victim that defendant had to jump over him. Defendant then turned around and shot the victim in the shoulder area. Kathleen called out, "Who is that?" so defendant would not suspect that she had recognized him. Defendant looked at her, pointed the gun into the air, and shot the light pole. Defendant ran off through a gangway. Kathleen found the victim between two cars. He was unresponsive, and Kathleen did not see a gun in his possession.

¶ 12 Natasha testified that she heard the first gunshot while she was inside her mother's house. Natasha saw Abdullah come towards her, crying. Natasha ran to the front door and onto the porch. She saw the victim being chased by defendant. She knew defendant because they had gone to school together. The victim did not have anything in his hands, but defendant held a gun in the hand of his extended arm. Natasha heard another gunshot and saw the victim fall to the ground. Defendant jumped over him and fired another gunshot toward the ground where the victim had fallen. Natasha heard Kathleen speak and then saw defendant fire a gunshot into the air. Natasha heard the gunshot hit a light pole near defendant. Defendant then ran away through a gangway.

¶ 13 Mayblelene testified that she was in her home just before 10:38 p.m. when she heard three gunshots. She heard another gunshot that sounded like it hit something iron. Abdullah ran past her to the door to see what had happened. Then Abdullah ran back past Mayblelene. Mayblelene went to the front door where Natasha was already standing and looking outside. Mayblelene saw defendant, whom she had seen several times per week in the neighborhood, run towards her house and then through a gangway with a gun in his hand. She did not see anyone else on the street with a gun and did not see anyone else run from the scene. Mayblelene had a phone in her hand and telephoned 911.

¶ 14 Detective Donald Hill and Detective John Otto arrived at the scene around 11:30 p.m. and learned that Natasha and Kathleen had witnessed the shooting. Detective Hill spoke to both women separately and each stated that the shooter's nickname was "Nu–Nu." Natasha and Kathleen were immediately transported to the police station in separate vehicles and were kept separate while they were at the police station.

¶ 15 Meanwhile, Mayblelene's niece Dominique Coleman had arrived at Mayblelene's house. Mayblelene told her that "Nu–Nu," with whom Dominique had gone to school, had shot the victim. Dominique told Officer Kevin Fry and Officer Robert Lobianco that "Nu–Nu" had shot the victim. Dominique also showed the officers a photo of "Nu–Nu" on her cell phone. The police obtained defendant's photograph from a police department computer, and Dominique identified that photograph as the person Mayblelene had said was the shooter. Officer Fry relayed information about the identification to Detective Hill and Detective Otto.

¶ 16 Detective William Meister and Detective Patrick Ford interviewed Kathleen and Natasha at the police station. Natasha was visibly upset, stated that the shooter was a person she knew as "Nu–Nu," and gave a physical description of him. Kathleen, also visibly upset, similarly identified the shooter as someone she knew as "Nu–Nu." When Detective Hill informed Detective Meister that defendant had been identified as "Nu–Nu," Detective Meister created a photo array that included a photo of defendant. Natasha and Kathleen separately viewed the photo array and identified the photo of defendant as "Nu–Nu," the man who shot the victim.

¶ 17 Detective Hill testified that he...