People v. Donegan

Decision Date25 July 2012
Docket NumberNo. 1–10–2325.,1–10–2325.
Citation974 N.E.2d 352,362 Ill.Dec. 831,2012 IL App (1st) 102325
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Lamont DONEGAN, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, Shawn O'Toole, State Appellate Defender's Office, Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Miles J. Keleher, Sheilah O'Grady-Krajniak, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Presiding Justice QUINN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

[362 Ill.Dec. 836]¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant, Lamont Donegan, was convicted of first degree murder in the shooting death of Lorne Moseley and subsequently sentenced by the trial court to 27 years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel where counsel failed to object to inadmissible testimony; (2) the trial court erred in permitting the State to present evidence of defendant's prior crime; and (3) the trial court violated Supreme Court Rule 431(b) ( ill. s.ct. r. 431(b) (eff. may 1, 2007)) in questioning potential jurors. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On June 10, 2008, defendant and Keith Pikes were arrested for the August 21, 2006, murder of Lorne Moseley. They were later charged with first degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and aggravated discharge of a firearm. The State's theory of the case was that the shooting was part of an ongoing war between two street gangs, the Four Corner Hustlers and the Gangster Disciples. Specifically, the State contended that defendant was a Four Corner Hustler and that the day before Moseley's murder, defendant shot at Quentez Robinson, a Gangster Disciple, who had ridden a motor scooter into Four Corner's territory. Defendant was then hit by a car driven by Gangster Disciples who had been following Robinson. The State posited that two days later, defendant retaliated by driving into a Gangster Disciple neighborhood with codefendant Pikes, and a third man, Golden Richardson, and shot at a group of people, killing Moseley.

¶ 4 The case proceeded to separate simultaneous jury trials in December 2010. Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine to introduce evidence that defendant was a gang member and that he had shot at Robinson a few days before killing Moseley, in order to establish motive. The trial court allowed the evidence over defense counsel's objection. The State also sought to introduce statements made by defendant and Pikes to two witnesses before the shooting as reported in the witnesses' handwritten statements and grand jury testimony, also to establish motive. The defense objected on the grounds that there was insufficient foundation for those statements, but the trial court found them to be admissible under the coconspirator's exception to the hearsay rule. Lastly, the trial court granted the State's request to introduce statements made by defendant and Pikes describing the shooting to their friends.

¶ 5 At trial, Quentez Robinson testified that he was a Gangster Disciple and that he knew defendant to be a member of a rival gang, the Four Corner Hustlers. On August 18, 2006, Robinson was riding a scooter and being followed in a car by his friends “Cairo,” Herbert Lemon, and Brandon Merkson. When Robinson rode into Four Corner territory he saw defendant run out of an alley and start shooting at him. Robinson stated that two days later, on August 20, 2006, he, Moseley, and several other friends were standing in front of a friend's house at 104th Street and Corliss Avenue when a silver, boxy car rode by with the back window down. Robinson saw a hand come out of the rear window and start shooting. Robinson heard 12 to 15 shots that sounded like they were coming from two guns, but he was unable to identify the shooter.

¶ 6 Next, Herbert Lemon testified that he was a Gangster Disciple and was with Robinson on the night he rode a scooter into Four Corner territory. Lemon was riding in the car that was following Robinson and saw defendant shoot at Robinson. He said the car then hit defendant. On the night of the Moseley murder, Lemon was with Moseley and several other people standing in front of a house on 104th Street and Corliss Avenue when a gray, box-like car drove by and shots were fired from it. Lemon said he heard eight or nine shots, looked inside the car, and recognized defendant in the passenger seat and Pikes in the driver's seat and saw both of them shooting. On December 22, 2007, Lemon identified defendant and Pikes in a photo lineup as the shooters.

¶ 7 The State then presented three witnesses, Vernard Crowder, Brandon Merkson, and DeAngelo Coleman, who had given handwritten statements and grand jury testimony before trial but denied some or all of those prior statements at trial. First, Crowder testified that he knew defendant and Pikes and that they were not members of any gang. Crowder said that he could not recall seeing defendant or Pikes on the night Moseley was killed and that he did not hear any gunshots. Crowder acknowledged that he met with Assistant States Attorney (ASA) Aidan O'Connor on January 8, 2008, regarding the Moseley murder, but said that she told him what to say and threatened to charge him if he refused to do so. Crowder also acknowledged that he testified before the grand jury on April 16, 2009, but claimed that he was told that his pending domestic battery case would not be dropped unless he did. The State confronted Crowder with portions of his grand jury testimony and he denied giving the answers in the transcript. Defense counsel objected to the State's request to introduce the transcripts, arguing that they were inadmissible. The trial court reserved ruling on the issue.

¶ 8 Later in the trial, the State called two witnesses to prove up Crowder's prior statements. First, ASA Krista Peterson was called to testify as to Crowder's grand jury testimony. Defense counsel objected on the grounds that parts of Crowder's grand jury testimony included his interpretation of statements made by defendant and Pikes before and after the shooting. The trial court overruled the objection, noting that Crowder had testified and that [Crowder's] own present sense impressions were some of the things he was talking about, and he was available for cross-examination.”

¶ 9 The transcript of Crowder's grand jury testimony was admitted into evidence and ASA Peterson read the transcript stating, in part, that Crowder testified that he, Pikes, and defendant were Four Corner Hustlers and that in August 2006, their gang was at war with the Gangster Disciples. On the evening of August 20, 2006, Crowder was walking home when he saw defendant and Pikes standing near an older model, four-door, grayish-black Toyota car. Crowder said that defendant was cleaning out the car and that Pikes called him over and asked him if he wanted to go with them to go “handle some business” on Corliss. Crowder said he took this to mean that they were going to harm someone since that was the block where they had previously fought with Gangster Disciples. Crowder told Pikes he did not want to go with them because he was on probation. Crowder then went to his godmother's house and was sitting on the front porch when he heard several gunshots coming from the direction of 105th and Corliss Avenue.

¶ 10 During his grand jury testimony, Crowder further stated that a few days before the Moseley shooting, defendant was hit by a car driven by Gangster Disciples and was angry about it. Two days after the Moseley shooting, Crowder was with defendant and DeAngelo Coleman in a gangway at 107th and Champlain. Defendant had a .45–caliber High Point gun with orange sights and told Crowder that he “can't get caught with a gun because it had a body on Corliss,” which Crowder took to mean the Moseley shooting. While they were in the gangway, the police approached and everyone ran. Crowder said that defendant fell and the clip fell out of the gun. Defendant then threw the gun away. When Crowder next saw Pikes in the fall of 2007, Pikes was angry about being shot at “in the behind and said ‘Why ain't nobody keeping going over there, finishing what he had left off with?’ Crowder took that to mean the Moseley shooting.

¶ 11 ASA Aidan O'Connor was called to testify as to Crowder's handwritten statement, which she took on January 8, 2008. That statement, which was entered into evidence and published to the jury, was nearly identical in substance to Crowder's grand jury testimony

¶ 12 Next, the State called Brandon Merkson, who testified that in August 2006, he was a member of the Gangster Disciples and that defendant was a member of the Four Corner Hustlers. On the evening of August 19, 2006, Merkson was in a car with Herbert Lemon and a friend called Cairo, and they were following Robinson, who was riding a scooter in the vicinity of 107th and Champlain, which was Four Corner Hustlers territory. Merkson said that he saw a person run into the street and shoot at Robinson four times but could not identify the shooter. Merkson said that the car ran into the shooter, knocking him down, and that they then drove away.

¶ 13 Merkson testified that on December 22, 2007, he was brought to Area 2 police headquarters and gave a handwritten statement to ASA O'Connor, wherein he identified defendant as the man who shot at Robinson. Defense counsel objected when the State began reading from the statement on the grounds of improper impeachment, and the trial court overruled the objection. When asked whether he had told ASA O'Connor that defendant had shot at Robinson, Merkson testified that he told her that he was not sure who the shooter was, but that she had written in his statement that he identified defendant. Merkson...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • People v. Colon
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 28 Junio 2018
    ...trial court described it, an "admission by silence."2 The "tacit admission rule" is well established in our case law. See People v. Donegan , 2012 IL App (1st) 102325, ¶ 67, 362 Ill.Dec. 831, 974 N.E.2d 352 ("the tacit admission rule"); People v. Soto , 342 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 1013, 277 Ill.......
  • People v. Simpson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 23 Enero 2015
    ...Ill.Dec. 635, 954 N.E.2d 718 ; People v. Wilson, 2012 IL App (1st) 101038, ¶ ¶ 38–42, 359 Ill.Dec. 527, 966 N.E.2d 1215 ; People v. Donegan, 2012 IL App (1st) 102325, ¶¶ 32–38, 362 Ill.Dec. 831, 974 N.E.2d 352 ; People v. Hobson, 2014 IL App (1st) 110585, ¶¶ 22–25, 379 Ill.Dec. 948, 7 N.E.3......
  • People v. Doehring
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 30 Septiembre 2021
    ...regardless of its intrinsic merit, and repetition lends credibility to testimony that it might not otherwise deserve.’ " People v. Donegan , 2012 IL App (1st) 102325, ¶ 52, 362 Ill.Dec. 831, 974 N.E.2d 352 (quoting People v. Smith , 139 Ill. App. 3d 21, 33, 93 Ill.Dec. 512, 486 N.E.2d 1347 ......
  • People v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 27 Junio 2017
    ...they observed if it is helpful for the determination of a fact in issue. Ill. R. Evid. 701(a), (b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011); People v. Donegan , 2012 IL App (1st) 102325, ¶ 42, 362 Ill.Dec. 831, 974 N.E.2d 352. For example, a lay witness could describe a car accident that her or she observed. Fr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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