People v. Edmondson

Decision Date28 September 2018
Docket NumberNo. 1-15-1381,1-15-1381
Citation142 N.E.3d 722,436 Ill.Dec. 321,2018 IL App (1st) 151381
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy EDMONDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Yasaman Hannah Navai, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Joseph Alexander, and Koula A. Fournier, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE ELLISdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 A jury convicted defendantRandy Edmondson of the first degree murder of Jose Escobar and the attempted murder of Alberto Rivera.The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense as to both charges and on second degree murder based on "imperfect" or "unreasonable" self-defense.But defense counsel did not argue any of these self-defense theories to the jury.Instead, counsel argued a theory of reasonable doubt—contending that the witnesses could not reliably identify defendant as the shooter—that was inconsistent with these theories.

¶ 2Defendant contends, for this reason, that counsel was ineffective in closing argument.He also claims that it was plain error not to modify the Illinois Pattern Instructions (IPI) for attempted murder.Without certain modifications, he says, those instructions could have led the jury to convict him of attempted murder based on a finding that he attempted to kill Escobar (the murder victim) rather than Rivera (the attempted-murder victim).Alternatively, he contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the unmodified instructions.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The victims, Jose Escobar and Alberto Rivera, were shot in front of Johnny O's, a hotdog stand at 35th and Morgan Streets, around 5:00 a.m. on September 30, 2012.Escobar was shot in the head and died on the scene.Rivera survived, but his injuries left him paralyzed and reliant on a wheelchair.

¶ 5 Rivera testified about the shooting and the events leading up to it.Rivera and Escobar left a party nearby and went to Johnny O's for a bite to eat.Rivera drank a few beers throughout the night and used cocaine at the party.Escobar was drunk.They were both Latin Kings.

¶ 6 The line in front of Johnny O's was a friendly scene.The customers chatted and mingled on the sidewalk while they waited for their food.Rivera, a car salesman, gave out his business card and tried to sell someone a car.

¶ 7Defendant and his friend, Rafael Diaz, walked up to the line.Rivera did not know either of them.Rivera first noticed them after Diaz and Escobar started arguing.Escobar was upset that Diaz wore his hat tilted to the right, which Escobar took as a sign of opposition or disrespect to the Latin Kings.Rivera tried to calm Escobar down.And so did defendant, who repeatedly told Escobar, "we don't gang bang."

¶ 8Julius Williams, another Johnny O's customer, testified that he arrived in the midst of a heated and escalating dispute.Williams did not know any of the people involved, and he heard only "bits and pieces" of their argument.But he did recall Escobar asking defendant and Diaz if they were "Kings," and defendant responding, "we don't gang bang."

¶ 9 At some point, Escobar took off his hoodie.Diaz motioned off to the side and said, "if you want to go, then let's go over here."Diaz stepped away from the line, and Escobar followed.Escobar shoved Diaz.The two squared off, with their fists raised, as if they were about to fight.But they never did.

¶ 10 Rivera testified that he tried to break them up.At first, defendant did too.But then defendant, who was standing somewhere behind Escobar, pulled a revolver out of his waistband; "swung around in front of" Escobar; put a gun "in his face"; and shot him.

¶ 11 Rivera turned and ran, but he was shot from behind while trying to flee.Rivera fell to the ground and was shot two more times.He tried to move, but he could not feel his legs.In all, he suffered three gunshot wounds—to his back, shoulder, and left leg.

¶ 12 Williams testified that defendant, who was standing off to the side of Escobar, walked up to Escobar and put a long-nose revolver to his head.The gun was "[r]eally close.Like, point-blank range."Williams immediately turned and ran.While he was fleeing, he heard a single gunshot, and then about four more gunshots fired in quick succession.Williams escaped safely and ran to his apartment nearby.

¶ 13 Neither Rivera nor Williams saw anyone at Johnny O's with a gun, or any other weapon, other than defendant.Rivera also testified that he was unarmed.

¶ 14 The medical examiner found that Escobar was shot at close range, meaning from, at most, three feet away.The cause of his death was a single gunshot wound to the face.The police did not recover the shooter's gun.The forensic investigator testified that the absence of any casings at the scene strongly suggested (but did not prove) that the shooter used a revolver.

¶ 15 The witnesses' accounts of the events leading up to the shooting were corroborated, in all essentials, by video footage from a Johnny O's surveillance camera.Rivera and Williams viewed and identified various clips, and the entire video was published to the jury.

¶ 16 Before defendant and Diaz arrived, Rivera is seen mingling with the other customers for several minutes.Escobar is visibly drunk, often swaying and propping himself up against the counter.Soon after defendant and Diaz join the line, Escobar and Diaz begin to argue.Escobar repeatedly gets in Diaz's face, and both are evidently agitated.Most of the argument is inaudible, but at various points Escobar says to Diaz, "respect me ni* * *."Rivera makes several efforts to calm Escobar down, and defendant repeats, "we don't gang bang" numerous times.

¶ 17 After a few minutes, Diaz and Escobar step away from the counter.Escobar takes off his hoodie, and Diaz raises his fists in the air, as the two square off to fight.Escobar pushes Diaz, but otherwise the details of their confrontation are not evident on the video.

¶ 18 Meanwhile, defendant and Rivera start walking over toward Diaz and Escobar.Along the way, defendant, who had a phone in his right hand, appears to reach into his waistband with his left.A couple of seconds later, Williams turns and starts running.Someone yells "back up," and a single gunshot is audible.Rivera turns and runs, but as five more gunshots are fired in quick succession, Rivera falls to the ground.

¶ 19Victoria Garza, defendant's friend and Diaz's girlfriend, testified to the events that immediately followed the shooting.Garza and Diaz shared an apartment across the street from Johnny O's.On the night of the shooting, they went out with some friends.Garza could not recall whether defendant was with them.When they returned, in the wee hours, Garza was drunk.She got ready for bed, and Diaz went to Johnny O's.

¶ 20 After that, Garza testified, her recollections were sparse: She heard a loud boom outside.Defendant soon came over, agitated and out of breath.Garza and defendant met up with Diaz in the garage, got into Garza's car, and drove toward Indiana on the Dan Ryan Expressway.Defendant got out somewhere near the expressway, but she could not recall where.

¶ 21 After claiming not to recall any further details of the evening, Garza was impeached with her grand-jury testimony and handwritten statement.In those prior statements, Garza had said, among other things, that defendant came to the apartment and asked her to "get me out of here."Defendant first asked Garza to drive him to a friend's house on Dempster Street; then he asked for a ride to Indiana.In the car, Diaz said to defendant, "F---, what did you do?" and asked why he gave the victim "a dome shot"(meaning, a shot to the head).Defendant cried, told Diaz that he was not going to "county," and said that he wanted to kill himself.Defendant eventually got out of the car at 47th and the Dan Ryan.

¶ 22 Officer Crawley of the Danville Police Department testified that he arrested defendant, for unrelated reasons, on May 24, 2013—almost nine months after the shooting and 140 miles from Chicago.Officer Crawley learned that defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant for a murder and had him transferred to the Chicago Police Department.

¶ 23 Once in custody in Chicago, defendant was identified in separate physical line-ups by Rivera and Williams, both of whom had previously identified him in the Johnny O's surveillance video, and in photo arrays generated from that video.

¶ 24 After consulting with his attorney, defendant chose not to testify.

¶ 25 The jury received pattern instructions for the offenses of first degree murder and attempted murder.At defendant's request, and over the State's objection, the trial court instructed the jury on self-defense, with respect to both charged offenses; and on the mitigated offense of second degree murder, based on defendant's unreasonable belief that self-defense was necessary.The trial court found that there was a basis in the evidence for self-defense and second-degree-murder instructions, because there was "some contact" between Escobar and Diaz "immediately prior to the shooting."

¶ 26 Defense counsel did not argue any theories of self-defense or second degree murder to the jury.Instead, counsel's closing argument developed a theory of reasonable doubt, based on the witnesses' alleged inability to reliably identify defendant as the shooter.

¶ 27 The jury found defendant guilty of the first degree murder of Escobar and the attempted murder of Rivera.The jury also found that defendant personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused Escobar's death and Rivera's permanent disability.The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 85 years in prison: 25 years for murder, 10 years for attempted murder, and 25...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 26, 2019
    ...an ineffectiveness claim." People v. Trice , 2017 IL App (1st) 152090, ¶ 69, 413 Ill.Dec. 288, 77 N.E.3d 1095 ; see also People v. Edmondson , 2018 IL App (1st) 151381, ¶ 36, 436 Ill.Dec. 321, 142 N.E.3d 722 (a counsel's tactical decisions in her closing presentation are at the quintessenti......
  • People v. Willingham
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 6, 2020
    ...when a court must "accommodate unusual facts or intervening changes in the laws." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Edmondson , 2018 IL App (1st) 151381, ¶ 63, 436 Ill.Dec. 321, 142 N.E.3d 722.¶ 62 The pattern jury instruction for attempted murder given at Mr. Willingham's trial......
  • People v. Ramos
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 26, 2024
    ...it is not improper for the defense to argue alternative theories, even ones that contradict each other. See, e.g., People v. Edmondson, 2018 IL App (1st) 151381, ¶ 43 (citing People v. Everette, 141 147, 155-56 (1990)). Advancing conflicting theories during closing argument can be a dangero......

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