People v. Ealy
| Decision Date | 29 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2–13–1106.,2–13–1106. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. James EALY, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
53 N.E.3d 109
403 Ill.Dec. 55
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee
v.
James EALY, Defendant–Appellant.
No. 2–13–1106.
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.
Dec. 29, 2015.
Thomas A. Lilien and Kerry Goettsch, both of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Elgin, for appellant.
Michael G. Nerheim, State's Attorney, of Waukegan (Lawrence M. Bauer and Victoria E. Jozef, both of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
OPINION
Justice BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 A jury found defendant, James Ealy, guilty of first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of natural life imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial due to the cumulative prejudice of three trial errors: (1) the admission of evidence that, unlike several other people whom the police interviewed, defendant refused to consent to DNA testing, and the State's argument to the jury that his refusal showed consciousness of guilt; (2) the exclusion of evidence that, like defendant, other residents of his apartment complex paid rent in installments each month; and (3) the State's closing argument that an acquittal based on the absence of fingerprints or DNA evidence would improperly “reward” defendant. Defendant also argues that a new trial is necessary because the jury returned inconsistent verdicts in finding him guilty of intentional murder and not guilty of knowing murder.
¶ 2 The State denies any trial error. Alternatively, the State argues that (1) defendant forfeited his challenge to the admissibility of his refusal of DNA testing
and (2) “any alleged evidentiary errors and instances of prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to cumulative error.”
¶ 3 We hold that (1) defendant preserved his challenge to the admissibility of his refusal of DNA testing; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence of the refusal and allowing the State to argue that it showed consciousness of guilt; (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that other residents of the apartment complex paid rent as defendant had; (4) the State's argument that the jury should not “reward” defendant for the absence of fingerprints or DNA evidence was not prosecutorial misconduct; and (5) the admittedly inconsistent verdicts do not warrant a new trial. The State produced overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt such that any trial error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 Mary Hutchinson's body was found on the floor of her office at the Burger King restaurant in Lindenhurst at 5:10 a.m. on November 27, 2006. Hutchinson died from strangulation and stab wounds inflicted by a flat-head screwdriver. The safe in her office was found open and empty. A large screwdriver that employees had used to disengage the locking mechanism of the main entry doors was missing from the office. A few days after the incident, a search of defendant's home disclosed cash, and he was charged with the murder. Defendant knew the victim from his time working at the Burger King from July 26, 2005, to October 25, 2006.
¶ 6 On the date of the incident, Hutchinson, a manager, had been authorized to come in early to complete her monthly inventory check. The restaurant's records showed that the alarm had been deactivated just before 4 a.m., and an audit of the safe showed that it had most recently been opened at 4:23 a.m. A cash report from the night before showed that the safe was missing $236 in 1–dollar bills, $645 in 5–dollar bills, $410 in 10–dollar bills, and $300 in 20–dollar bills. Also missing were $40 in dimes and $70 in quarters.
¶ 7 The Lake County Major Crimes Task Force took charge of the investigation and began interviewing current and former employees of the Burger King. George Filenko, the commander of the task force, and Detectives Viramontes and Lambie were responsible for interviewing defendant.
¶ 8 Filenko, Viramontes, and Lambie went to defendant's apartment at 8:30 p.m. on the date of the incident. According to Filenko, defendant invited the officers inside and said that he had heard about Hutchinson's death from a friend. Defendant agreed to go to the Lindenhurst police station for further questioning.
¶ 9 At the station, defendant told Filenko and Lambie that he was working at McDonald's but quit his second job at Burger King to start working at Value City, where he received higher pay. Defendant regularly worked at McDonald's from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., Monday through Thursday. Defendant worked a similar shift on Sunday nights, usually leaving at 4 a.m.
¶ 10 Defendant told Filenko that, on Monday, November 27, 2006, defendant left McDonald's at 4:01 a.m. and drove to the Lake Villa post office. Filenko testified that defendant said he arrived at the post office at 4:17 a.m. and then drove home to take a nap until 5:45 a.m. before going to work at Value City. To refute defendant's account of events, the State introduced evidence at trial that he was at a White Hen convenience store in Lindenhurst a short time after the offense. Steve
Schwaller, a manager of the White Hen, testified that he saw defendant in his store about 4:42 a.m. Defendant walked in and stared at Schwaller for a few seconds without responding to his greeting. After seeing a police officer reading a newspaper inside the store, defendant picked up a candy bar and brought it to the counter. A receipt for the purchase was time stamped at 4:42 a.m.
¶ 11 Continuing the interview at the station, defendant told Filenko that he and Hutchinson were friends and that she had told him about an armed robbery she had endured while working at a Burger King in Antioch. According to Filenko, defendant said that Hutchinson had brought up the possibility of defendant acting as her bodyguard while he worked at Burger King. Defendant left the station when he said he would be late for work, and the interview ended.
¶ 12 At Filenko's request, defendant returned to the station the next day. Defendant appeared agitated and upset that the media had been filming at his apartment the previous night. Filenko took defendant to the area of the station where the police were collecting fingerprints and DNA samples from several current and former employees of the Burger King.
¶ 13 Over defense objection, Filenko testified that defendant refused to give the police a sample of his DNA. Officer Ralph Goar, an evidence technician, testified that, on November 28, 2006, he collected palm prints and fingerprints from 22 current and former employees, including defendant. When Goar asked defendant for a DNA sample, “he was adamant and actually appeared to be agitated about even being asked to take his DNA samples.” Goar testified that the other 21 people gave DNA samples. The next day, Goar collected fingerprints and DNA samples from nine more current or former employees. Two days later, the police obtained a search warrant and collected samples of defendant's DNA.
¶ 14 Evidence such as fingerprints and swabs of possible bodily fluid were collected from the crime scene, analyzed, and compared to the fingerprints and DNA from defendant and the other current and former employees. None of the evidence from the scene provided relevant identification information.
¶ 15 Phone records showed that the Burger King received two calls about 4:23 a.m. on the date of the incident. Both calls were from the number that defendant had given to the police as his cell phone number. Records showed that the caller dialed “ *67” before each call, meaning that the caller's phone number would be blocked on the receiver's caller identification feature. Filenko testified that, during his interview, defendant did not mention calling the Burger King.
¶ 16 The police set up a team to watch defendant while he was at work. Three days after the murder, at 5:45 a.m. on November 30, 2006, defendant left the McDonald's and began driving west, at which point the surveillance team stopped and arrested him. The surveillance team detained defendant at the Round Lake Park police station while other officers executed a warrant to search his home.
¶ 17 The search disclosed a bundle of cash hidden between the inner and outer linings of a full-length leather jacket. The jacket was in defendant's bedroom closet. The cash was in a white plastic bag and accessible through a hole in the jacket's pocket. Forensic testing revealed that the bag contained three latent fingerprints from defendant's left hand. The cash was $286 in 1–dollar bills, $550 in 5–dollar bills, and $180 in 10–dollar bills, with each denomination grouped and the groups ordered
sequentially. The search also disclosed a pillow case filled with $70...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Romanowski
...(holding a defendant's refusal to be tested for cocaine is inadmissible), and People v. Ealy, 2015 IL App (2d) 131106, ¶¶ 49–50, 403 Ill.Dec. 55, 53 N.E.3d 109 (holding a defendant's refusal to submit to DNA testing is inadmissible). In reaching its decision, the Ealy court specifically dis......
-
People v. Gavin
...the absence of DNA evidence establishing his guilt made his refusals unfairly prejudicial. People v. Ealy, 2015 IL App (2d) 131106, ¶ 51, 53 N.E.3d 109, a case upon which defendant relies, is factually distinguishable in that the defendant in that case refused to submit a DNA sample as an e......