People v. Chambers

• Docket Number: 4-20-0299
• Decision Date: 07 February 2022
• Citation: 2022 IL App (4th) 200299 U
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANGELIS M. CHAMBERS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

1

2022 IL App (4th) 200299-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANGELIS M. CHAMBERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-20-0299

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

February 7, 2022

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County No. 18CF1775 Honorable Roger B. Webber, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Holder White concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

HARRIS JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: (1) The trial court committed no error in partially denying defendant's motion to present evidence of the victim's propensity for violence.

(2) The trial court's improper admission of hearsay statements under the excited utterance exception was harmless error.

(3) Defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial by the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments.

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant, Dangelis M. Chambers was convicted of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2018)) and sentenced to 55 years in prison. He appeals arguing he was denied a fair trial because (1) the trial court erroneously barred him from presenting certain evidence of the victim's propensity for violence, (2) the court erroneously admitted a witness's hearsay statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule and (3) the prosecutor misstated the law regarding an initial aggressor's duty to retreat during closing arguments. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In December 2018, the State charged defendant with four counts of first degree murder (id. § (a)(1) (a)(2)) (counts I through IV) and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (id. § 24-1.1 (a)) (count V) in connection with the shooting death of Renese Riley. (The State later added a charge of second degree murder (id. § 9-2 (a)(2)) (count VI), but that count was dismissed on the State's motion prior to trial.) The charges were based on claims that defendant and Riley were involved in dating relationships with two sisters, Demeisha and Denika Carlton. In the early morning hours of December 30, 2018, defendant and Riley engaged in a physical altercation outside the sisters' apartment building during which defendant shot and killed Riley, who was unarmed. Defendant acknowledged shooting Riley but maintained Riley was the aggressor during a confrontation between the two and he shot Riley in self-defense.

¶ 5 A. Pretrial Proceedings

¶ 6 Prior to trial, the parties filed various pretrial motions. Relevant to this appeal, in August 2019, defendant filed a motion to introduce evidence at trial of Riley's propensity for violence. He maintained Riley's aggressive and violent character was relevant to his theory of self-defense and asked that he be permitted to present evidence that (1) in December 2011, Riley struck a woman named Julia Burrage in the face with a comb, resulting in a domestic battery charge; (2) in December 2018, defendant and Demeisha witnessed Riley arguing with Denika and heard him threaten to have Denika "jump[ed]" and her apartment "shot up"; (3) in December 2018, Demeisha encountered three of Riley's female relatives who reported that they had been sent by Riley "to confront and fight" defendant; (4) in 2018, defendant and Demeisha witnessed Riley argue with Denika and shove her into a wall; (5) in 2018, Riley was involved in an altercation with Demeisha and Denika's mother, Sherri Carlton, during which he "pulled [Sherri's] hair and grabbed her by the neck[, ] causing scratches to her neck"; (6) Sherri witnessed Riley "beat on and push Denika"; and (7) in November 2018, "Riley posted on Facebook 'I got murda [sic] on my mind.'

¶ 7 During hearings on the motion, defendant presented offers of proof that included recordings of interviews a defense investigator conducted with Demeisha and Sherri. Ultimately, the trial court granted the portions of defendant's motion in which he sought to present evidence that Riley threatened to have Denika attacked and her apartment "shot up" and evidence that he shoved Denika into a wall. The court reserved its ruling on defendant's request to admit evidence of Riley's purported Facebook posting and otherwise denied his motion. Regarding defendant's request for the admission of evidence that Riley pulled Sherri's hair and grabbed her neck, the court specifically stated as follows:

" [Evidence of an altercation involving Riley and Sherri] I think would be appropriate, depending on exactly what that testimony would be. So I think I need either more specific representations as to who initiated that altercation. From the interview that I heard of Sherri ***, it's very uncertain as to when, where that took place. It's very generic, that he was arguing all the time. I don't recall her mentioning even a month or a year of when that took place. So I'm going to deny the offer as to [that paragraph] unless you want to make an offer of proof and provide some additional foundational specificity."

The record does not reflect that defendant made any further offer of proof.

¶ 8 In November 2019, the State filed a motion in limine, asking the trial court to find recorded statements Denika made after the shooting admissible under the excited utterance or spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule. According to the State, Riley was shot around 2:30 a.m. and transported to the hospital. Denika rode with him in the ambulance and, at approximately 4:30 a.m., made statements to the police while "visibly upset." The State alleged Denika reported that prior to the shooting, she got into an argument with defendant at her apartment and called Riley to help her pack her belongings so she and her child could stay the night in a hotel. Upon Riley's arrival, he remained "outside the apartment building by the gate" and said something that upset Demeisha and defendant. Although Denika tried to hold the gate shut, defendant "was able to push the gate open and started fighting with Riley." Denika asserted Riley punched defendant in the face and defendant shot Riley. Denika believed defendant retrieved the gun from his sleeve or pocket and stated she did not see Riley with a gun.

¶ 9 During a hearing on the motion, defendant presented police reports of the officers who initially responded to the scene of the shooting and who took Denika's statement at the hospital. Those reports show the police were dispatched to a call about a shooting at approximately 2:30 a.m. The responding officers observed Riley lying on the ground and bleeding heavily from his chest. Denika was standing over him and screaming for help. An officer noted he "attempted to speak with Denika but she was screaming and crying hysterically." The reports show Riley was transported to the hospital and later pronounced dead. At the hospital, Officer John Franquemont briefly spoke with Denika. He described her as being "very upset and crying uncontrollably" and stated she reported that following a domestic incident earlier in the evening, Riley "came back to the apartment upset because [Denika's] sister's boyfriend was upset with Denika for an unknown reason." Franquemont noted in his report that he did not get the name of either Denika's sister or her sister's boyfriend. He relayed what Denika told him to two other officers, Jeff Steinberg and Elizabeth Alfonso, who then spoke with Denika and obtained her recorded statement.

¶ 10 Alfonso's police report described Denika as "very emotional" and, at times, shouting. She noted Denika's friend, Myeshia Hinshaw, was also present at the hospital "for support," along with Denika's 10-month-old daughter. According to Alfonso's report, Denika called Hinshaw to help with Denika's child and Denika "told [Hinshaw] what happened."

¶ 11 After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court granted the State's motion. In setting forth its ruling, the court stated the "shooting of a loved one" was clearly a sufficiently startling event to produce a spontaneous and unreflective statement and held Denika's recorded statements related to that occurrence. The court considered the fact that the statements at issue occurred two hours after the shooting to be "a little bit of a problem," but noted case authority suggested there was "no hard and fast time limit" when determining whether the exception applied. After ruling that Denika's recorded statements were admissible, the court indicated the recording should be "narrow[ed] *** down" to only those relevant portions. Following further hearings in the matter and arguments by the parties, the court ordered portions of the recording redacted before being played at defendant's trial.

¶ 12 B. Defendant's Jury Trial

¶ 13 At trial, the State presented evidence that Demeisha and Denika resided together in a second-floor apartment of a three-story building located at 2008 Vawter Street in Urbana Illinois. At the time of the shooting, defendant and Demeisha were dating, and defendant was frequently at the sisters' apartment. Riley was the father of Denika's child and also frequented the apartment.

¶ 14 Around 1:45 a.m. on December 30, 2018, the police responded to a call about a possible domestic disturbance at the sisters' apartment. Urbana police officer Oliver Marquez responded to the call and spoke with Demeisha. He also observed a woman speaking on a cell phone and could overhear her saying" [']I want to go. [']" After looking around and not observing any injuries or signs of a struggle, Marquez "cleared the call" and left the scene.

¶ 15 Approximately 45 minutes later, at 2:28 a.m., the police received a call about a fight and then a possible...