People v. Cavitt

Decision Date30 September 2019
Docket NumberNo. 2-17-0149,2-17-0149
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leamon R. CAVITT Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Christopher Kopacz, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Joseph H. McMahon, State's Attorney, of St. Charles (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Stephanie Hoit Lee, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 After a jury trial in which he proceeded pro se , defendant, Leamon R. Cavitt Jr., was convicted of possession with intent to deliver over 900 grams of cocaine ( 720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(D) (West 2012)), aggravated battery of a peace officer ( 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(4), (f)(1) (West 2012)), and aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer ( 625 ILCS 5/11-204.1(a)(2) (West 2012)). He was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of 30 years, 3 years, and 1 year, respectively. Defendant, now represented by counsel, appeals, arguing that (1) the trial court committed reversible error when, in response to the jury's request during deliberations to view a surveillance-video exhibit, the court restricted the jury's access to the video, allowing only a single silent viewing in open court, and expressly discouraged the jury's reliance on the video; and (2) his conviction of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer should be reversed, because the State failed to prove that the officers involved wore "police uniform[s]" (id. § 11-204(a), 11-204.1(a)). We reject defendant's second argument, but we conclude that the court committed error in denying the jury's request for the video and conducting the viewing of it. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 In January 2012, police officers from Carpentersville and from other law enforcement agencies arranged for an undercover drug operation—specifically, a reverse-buy bust—wherein officers posed as drug dealers, selling one kilogram of cocaine for $29,000 to defendant and Sentoro Dunn. Several officers were assigned to surveillance and security and others were assigned to arrest teams. Streamwood police detective Juan Carrillo and Addison police detective Jose Gonzalez (Gonzalez) posed as the dealers. The operation occurred on January 17, 2012, at a McDonald's restaurant at 1660 Ravine Lane in Carpentersville and resulted in defendant's and Dunn's arrests.

¶ 4 A. Trial

¶ 5 Trial commenced on March 14, 2016. Under the State's theory of the case, Carrillo contacted Dunn, who acted as a middleman or broker for defendant, and they negotiated the cocaine's price and quantity and agreed to meet to execute the transaction. During opening statements, the State informed the jury that the surveillance video of the transaction came from the McDonald's security camera and that it was "grainy and spotty video." "And as you will see, the frame rate is a little weak and it only shows one particular vantage point." (The events occurred in the restaurant's west parking lot.) Police testimony, according to the State, would provide insight from other vantage points. The State then played for the jury a 16-minute, edited version of the video.

¶ 6 1. Officer James Schuldt

¶ 7 Carpentersville police officer James Schuldt, who originated and oversaw the operation, testified that he was part of the primary arrest team, which also included Carpentersville officers Kevin Stankowitz, Chris Bognetti, and Joseph Murphy. The primary arrest vehicle they used was a black van with no police markings. The van had curtains over the windows, so that no one could see in but the officers could see out. The four primary arrest officers, according to Schuldt, wore jeans, sweatshirts, and black tactical vests with police markings on the front and back. He explained that the front markings said "police" in white lettering on the upper left chest area and the back said "police" in white lettering "across the entire upper back." The secondary arrest team wore identical clothing. Part of Schuldt's operation plan, which he communicated to all officers, was that the officers, excluding the undercover officers and the two surveillance officers inside the McDonald's, wear clearly visible markings on their clothing so that "everybody knows that we are the police out there."

¶ 8 The team parked a sedan one spot south of the black van as a filler car, so that no civilians would be close to the black van. Schuldt explained that there were two officers just west of Ravine Road, facing east toward the restaurant. Further, the secondary arrest team was in a blue minivan on the northeast side of the restaurant, out of view of the west side where the black van was parked.

¶ 9 The undercover vehicle—a Buick—arrived at the McDonald's and parked two spots south of the black van and next to the sedan. Defendant's vehicle was a tan Cadillac, and it arrived and parked two spots south of the Buick. A civilian vehicle was between the Cadillac and the Buick.

¶ 10 The operation proceeded. Schuldt testified that, after Carrillo and Gonzalez walked inside the McDonald's, the Cadillac arrived. Schuldt observed two individuals in the vehicle, defendant (the driver) and Dunn (the front-seat passenger). Dunn entered the restaurant and later exited alone and walked to the passenger side of the Cadillac. Schuldt could not see what Dunn and defendant were doing at the car. At some point, while holding a white plastic shopping bag, Dunn walked toward the west side of the restaurant to where Carrillo and Gonzalez were standing. The three men walked to the Buick and stood near the trunk. Dunn then got into the passenger side of the Buick, and Carrillo got into the driver's side. Gonzalez stood near the front-passenger quarter-panel. When Schuldt observed the arrest signal, he and the primary arrest team exited the black van and proceeded to the passenger side of the Buick to take Dunn into custody. Stankowitz, with his gun drawn, and Schuldt opened the front passenger door and Schuldt announced "Police, don't move" and he and his team announced "Police. Police. You are under arrest. Police. You are under arrest." He reached in, grabbed Dunn, removed him from the vehicle, and arrested him, walking him to the rear of the vehicle and, with Bognetti's assistance, placing him in handcuffs.

¶ 11 Schuldt testified that he observed several bundles of money throughout the front of the Buick, including on the driver's seat and the passenger floorboard, and that he observed one kilogram of cocaine in the center console area.

¶ 12 Simultaneous to Dunn's arrest, the blue minivan pulled up behind the Cadillac and attempted to box it in so the officers could arrest defendant. Schuldt saw someone start to get out of the Cadillac and observed the backup lights illuminate. He also saw the minivan's passenger-side sliding door open, on the side facing the Cadillac. The Cadillac backed up at "a pretty high rate of speed for that short of [a] distance" and struck the minivan as Streamwood corporal Miguel Cabrales began to step out of the minivan. Schuldt heard a lot of shouting and several pops, which he later learned were gunshots. (The minivan was parked behind the Cadillac for less than five seconds before it was struck.) He also observed Gonzalez at the rear passenger side of the Cadillac. The Cadillac then accelerated forward and went down an embankment onto Ravine Road and traveled south, away from the restaurant.

¶ 13 Schuldt retrieved $30,000 in cash from throughout the front of the Buick.

¶ 14 2. Detective Juan Carrillo

¶ 15 Carrillo testified that, on January 16, 2012, he was asked to participate in a reverse-buy-bust operation with the Carpentersville Police Department. As part of the operation, Carrillo called Dunn that evening. Carrillo stated that he had heard that Dunn was looking for something, and Dunn responded that he had been waiting for the call and was looking for some "groceries," which Carrillo took to mean drugs. Carrillo responded that he had some, for $25,000 or $30,000 (for one kilogram, or about 36 ounces, of cocaine), and Dunn stated that he needed "the good stuff" for his cousin in St. Louis, who would "take the groceries to the kitchen," which Carrillo understood to mean that Dunn's cousin would cook the powder cocaine to make crack cocaine. After several more calls, Carrillo and Dunn agreed that they would meet the following day and that Dunn would buy one kilogram of cocaine for $29,000. Dunn stated that his cousin would bring the "papers," i.e. , money.

¶ 16 On January 17, 2012, Dunn told Carrillo over the phone that his cousin had the money and would buy one kilogram of cocaine. Dunn, who was traveling from Rockford, would pick up his cousin from a hotel, and they would meet Carrillo at a McDonald's in Carpentersville. During the officers' briefing that day, they decided to include Gonzalez as another undercover officer, because the operation involved large amounts of narcotics and currency and unknown individuals with unknown criminal histories.

¶ 17 Gonzalez drove with Carrillo in the Buick to the McDonald's and parked on the west side of the building. The rest of the police team was already there, and the kilogram of cocaine was in the trunk of the Buick. Carrillo and Gonzalez entered the restaurant. Also inside, serving as surveillance and rescue, were Addison detectives Roy Selvik and Greg Garofalo. They were in street clothes and had no markings to indicate that they were police officers.

¶ 18 Carrillo and Gonzalez ordered food and sat at a table on the west side of the restaurant, with a view of the parking lot where they had parked. Dunn called Carrillo to finalize directions and inform him that he was traveling in the Cadillac. The Cadillac drove into the parking...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • People v. Cavitt
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 19, 2021
    ...for the video and conducting the viewing of it. Accordingly, we reversed and remanded for a new trial. See People v. Cavitt , 2019 IL App (2d) 170149, 437 Ill.Dec. 278, 144 N.E.3d 78. Defendant subsequently petitioned for leave to appeal to the supreme court. The supreme court denied the pe......

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