People v. Faber
Citation | 974 N.E.2d 337,362 Ill.Dec. 816,2012 IL App (1st) 093273 |
Decision Date | 26 June 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 1–09–3273.,1–09–3273. |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Earl FABER, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
2012 IL App (1st) 093,273
974 N.E.2d 337
362 Ill.Dec. 816
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Earl FABER, Defendant–Appellant.
No. 1–09–3273.
Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, Second Division.
June 26, 2012.
[974 N.E.2d 339]
Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Alan D. Goldberg, Kerry Goettsch, Chicago, for Appellant.
Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, County of Cook, Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, William L. Toffenetti, Mary P. Needham, of counsel), for the People.
Justice HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
[362 Ill.Dec. 818]¶ 1 Defendant, Earl Faber, appeals his conviction after a jury trial of first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm, and his respective sentences of 60 years' and 25 years' imprisonment to be served consecutively. On appeal, Faber contends he was denied a fair trial where (1) the trial court erred in relying on the prosecutor's misstatement of the law and preventing his counsel from eliciting identification testimony from Sergeant Flaherty; (2) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to prepare for the case, failing to elicit exculpatory evidence, and not producing evidence promised to the jury during opening remarks; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his identification in two photo arrays where the arrays were lost by the State, foundation testimony was inconsistent, and the later lineup was suggestive; and (4) the lineup in which he was identified was unduly suggestive since he was the only participant wearing the clothing the offender was described as wearing and physically stood out from the others. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 3 The trial court sentenced Faber on October 15, 2009, and he filed a timely notice of appeal on November 13, 2009. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to [362 Ill.Dec. 819]
[974 N.E.2d 340]
article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution and Illinois Supreme Court Rules 603 and 606, governing appeals from a final judgment of conviction in a criminal case entered below. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6; Ill. S.Ct. R. 603 (eff. Oct. 1, 2010); R. 606 (eff. Mar. 20, 2009).
¶ 5 Faber, along with James Lenoir, Donald Phillips, and Leondray McClellan, was charged in the shootings of Deonte Wright and Jose Perez. Wright died from his injuries. The trial court granted Faber's motion to sever his trial from that of the other defendants.
¶ 6 Prior to trial, Faber filed a motion to suppress the testimony of two witnesses who had viewed a photographic array in which they identified Faber as the shooter. He also sought to suppress witnesses' identification of him from the lineup, arguing the lineup was unduly suggestive. At the hearing, Detective Flaherty testified that on September 17, 2003, witnesses Martha Christopher and Willie Stallworth were shown a photo array containing a photograph of Faber. Detective Flaherty described the photos as head and shoulder shots, approximately the size of a piece of 8 x 11 inch paper. They obtained photos of other subjects from Chicago police computer records. The photos are closely matched by gender, race, age, and facial features. Detective Flaherty went to the residences of Christopher and Stallworth and showed them an array containing a photograph of Faber and five “fillers.” He asked them to look through it to see if they recognized anyone. He did not tell them that he believed a photograph of one of the offenders was in the array. Both Christopher and Stallworth selected a photograph of Faber from the array. The selected photo was dated and signed by the witnesses and by Detective Flaherty. He stated that the last time he saw the photos of Faber was October 2003.
¶ 7 On September 19, 2003, Stallworth, Mrs. Christopher, Mr. Christopher, Mr. Nzau, and Mr. Reap came to the police station to view a lineup. At one point, the witnesses sat together in the same room but later they were separated. The lineup contained two codefendants, James Lenoir and Donald Phillips, as well as Faber. Detective Flaherty informed Faber that he would be placed in a lineup and asked him to pick a position in the lineup. He wore his civilian clothes. The witnesses viewed the lineup one at a time. Mrs. Christopher, Mr. Christopher, and Mr. Stallworth picked Faber out of the lineup. At no time were witnesses told that the shooter was in the lineup.
¶ 8 At the hearing, Faber testified that while he was in custody at the police station, he saw his clothes in a bag. The police told him he would be in a lineup and was given only his jeans and an undershirt to wear. He was not given his “tee shirt, jacket, [or] [his] hat.” He was not asked where he wanted to sit in the lineup. Instead, others were already seated and there was “a place for [him] to sit once [he] got there.” He did not voluntarily participate in the lineup, nor was he offered a phone call. During the lineup, the participants were asked one by one to step up to the two-way mirror and turn left and right. After going through all the participants, they performed the lineup procedure again. Faber stated that “the second time they ran the lineup it was like I was up there longer than the first time.”
¶ 9 The trial court denied Faber's motions, finding that the lineup was not suggestive and the procedure using the photographic array was fair. It accepted the testimony of Detective Flaherty, finding him to be a credible witness. It also believed that the State's loss of the photographs[362 Ill.Dec. 820]
[974 N.E.2d 341]
was inadvertent and the State diligently attempted to find the photos once it realized they were missing. No one told the witnesses which photo to select or that the offender's photo was in the array. It stated that it would not “preclude the State from going into the photographic array.”
¶ 10 At trial, Officer Kusinski testified that on September 16, 2003, he was conducting narcotics surveillance a few blocks from the intersection of Madison and Western in Chicago, Illinois, when he heard approximately six gunshots in the area. He ran to where he heard the shots fired and saw a lot of people running away. He fought his way through the intersection and found the victim, Deonte Wright, lying on Madison Street in front of a white Blazer. Officer Kusinski called for an ambulance and officer assistance. He observed another victim in the driver's seat of a yellow Camaro with a gunshot wound to his head.
¶ 11 Jose Perez testified that he had been driving northbound on Western when he stopped at the intersection of Western and Madison. He suddenly felt a hot sensation in his head and then awoke in a hospital.
¶ 12 Wright died from his injuries. One shot entered the front right side of his neck, traveled through his Adam's apple, hyoid bone, tongue, and the roof of his mouth to the skull and brain and partially exited the left top side of his head. He also suffered gunshot wounds to the left side of his head, his left arm, left buttock, and the left side of his abdomen. Perez survived, underwent surgery and had a metal plate inserted in his head.
¶ 13 Several witnesses testified regarding the shooting. Willie Stallworth testified that shortly after 3 p.m., he was driving his white Chevrolet Blazer when he stopped at a light at the intersection of Madison and Western. A lot of people were getting out of school. A man approached his vehicle from the left, passed behind and continued along the passenger side. Stallworth watched the man from his side-view mirror. He then observed Wright run south toward a vacant lot to his left. Wright ran in front of Stallworth's vehicle and he saw the man shoot Wright twice. Wright fell in front of the Blazer and the shooter walked up to him, put his gun under Wright's chin, and shot again. No one else shot at Wright. Stallworth testified that the offender was no more than five feet from his Blazer when he shot Wright. After shooting Wright, the man looked directly at Stallworth, turned and walked southbound. Stallworth identified Faber in court as the shooter. The following day, a detective came to his residence and showed him some photographs. From the photo array, Stallworth identified Faber as the shooter. He also identified Faber in a lineup conducted at the police station on September 19, 2003.
¶ 14 Michael Christopher testified that he had parked in a vacant lot so his wife could visit a shoe stand operated by Innocent Nzau on the southeast corner of Madison and Western. As he waited for his wife, he observed a two-tone blue Chevy park in front of him. Four people were inside the vehicle. The two rear passengers exited the vehicle and one of the men was holding something in his hand, but Mr. Christopher could not see the object. He exited his car and watched as the man pointed the gun toward the people at the bus stop. He heard gunshots and tried to get his wife's attention. He then saw Wright fall in front of a white sport utility vehicle facing west on Madison. The man with the gun stood over Wright, aimed at his head and shot him again. The shooter then walked past Mr. Christopher's car [362 Ill.Dec. 821]
[974 N.E.2d 342]
and back to the blue vehicle. Mr. Christopher did not identify the shooter.
¶ 15 Martha Christopher testified that she was looking at shoes when she noticed her husband pointing out something to her. She looked to where he was pointing and saw a man raise his arm and shoot in the direction of a bus stop. She observed Wright run onto Madison Street toward her. The offender continued to shoot at Wright and Wright fell in front of a white Blazer. The man stood over Wright and shot him again. The shooter smiled and walked south toward the vacant lot. He passed her husband's vehicle but she did not see where he went afterwards. Mrs. Christopher described the offender as “tall, dark-skinned. He had a Dago–T on and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Clifton
...and the officers "did not tell [him] what to wear." In support, the State cites People v. Faber , 2012 IL App (1st) 093273, ¶ 57, 362 Ill.Dec. 816, 974 N.E.2d 337, where we found no suggestiveness in a lineup even though the defendant was the only person wearing a sleeveless white T-shirt a......
-
People v. Joiner
...to be darker than the other four individuals, it is not extraordinarily so. See People v. Faber , 2012 IL App (1st) 093273, ¶ 57, 362 Ill.Dec. 816, 974 N.E.2d 337 (lineup participants are not required to be identical or near identical). "It is a truism that individual facial features and ha......
-
People v. Ayoubi
...626 ), whereas we review the trial court's ultimate suppression ruling de novo ( People v. Faber , 2012 IL App (1st) 093273, ¶ 50, 362 Ill.Dec. 816, 974 N.E.2d 337 ). In affirming the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, reviewing courts may consider evidence presented at both the ......
-
People v. Ortiz
...the participants in a photo array or lineup "to be identical or near identical." People v. Faber , 2012 IL App (1st) 093273, ¶ 57, 362 Ill.Dec. 816, 974 N.E.2d 337 (lineup was not unduly suggestive where the defendant was the only person wearing a sleeveless T-shirt, which a witness had des......