People v. Fane
| Decision Date | 16 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 126715 |
| Citation | 2021 IL 126715,190 N.E.3d 787,454 Ill.Dec. 805 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Twiqwon R. FANE, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Garson S. Fischer, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Thomas A. Lilien, Deputy Defender, and Darren E. Miller, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Elgin, for appellee.
¶ 1 At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving the jury a modified version of Illinois Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction No. 3.17 (2011) (hereinafter IPI Criminal No. 3.17), the accomplice witness instruction, when the alleged accomplice witness provided exculpatory testimony for defendant Twiqwon R. Fane. We conclude that the Stephenson County circuit court did not abuse its discretion; therefore, we reverse the appellate court's judgment.
¶ 3 In December 2016, defendant was charged with, among other crimes, residential burglary ( 720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2016)), aggravated battery of a victim over 60 (id. § 12-3.05(d)(1)), home invasion (id. § 19-6(a)(2)), and resisting or obstructing a peace officer (id. § 31-1(a)).
¶ 4 At trial, Sergeant Timothy Weichel from the Freeport Police Department testified first for the State. Weichel explained that, on November 18, 2016, at 2:23 a.m., a 911 operator alerted him to a home invasion in progress. As Weichel approached the home, he heard a woman screaming. When he arrived at the door on the north side of the residence, Weichel saw a man standing inside the home. Weichel ordered him to get down, but the man fled. At trial, Weichel identified the man as Drean McGee.
¶ 5 The woman continued to scream as though she were being attacked, which suggested to Weichel that there was another perpetrator. By the time he entered the home, the woman told him that the suspects had fled. Weichel described the woman as distraught and noted that she had been injured.
¶ 6 Weichel left the residence to pursue the suspects. Hearing noise to the east of the home, he ran in that direction and radioed incoming units to inform them that the suspects were headed eastward. Roughly five minutes later, another officer reported that two people were running in a field approximately four blocks from the victim's home. When Weichel arrived, the other officer had two men in custody. Weichel identified defendant as the second man apprehended that day along with McGee. Weichel also explained that "there was a small area between the shed and the building where [defendant] was taken into custody." Weichel found a white T-shirt there. He directed another officer to collect the white T-shirt as evidence.
¶ 7 Freeport police corporal Ben Johnson testified that he heard Weichel's call for backup that morning and drove in the direction of the suspects. Johnson saw two men sprinting across a field. He got out of his squad car and ran after them, ordering them to stop running several times. Ultimately, the men ran into a dead end. When Johnson caught up to them, McGee was "standing in the open," while defendant "attempt[ed] to conceal himself behind a shed along the building." Johnson withdrew his taser and ordered them to the ground. When another officer arrived, both men were handcuffed.
¶ 8 Freeport police officer James Darren Hodges testified that he transported defendant to the police station that morning. According to Hodges, while they were en route to the station, defendant volunteered that his girlfriend Gabby's car had been stolen the night before. After transferring defendant into custody, Hodges returned to the field where defendant and McGee were caught. Sergeant Weichel asked Hodges to retrieve a white T-shirt from where officers found defendant hiding. After taking a picture of it, Hodges placed the T-shirt into a bag to be placed into evidence. That morning, another officer also transferred a set of keys, key fob, and a key chain over to Hodges to be processed into evidence.
¶ 9 The other officer, Daniel Moore, testified that on November 18, 2016, he was sent to the victim's home around 2:30 a.m. While speaking with the victim, Voncile Modlinger, he noticed a set of car keys on the floor in front of the piano in the living room. Moore picked them up and asked Modlinger if they belonged to her. She said that they did not. Moore retained the keys "for the time being" before eventually giving them to Hodges to be put into evidence.
¶ 10 Defendant's former girlfriend Gabrielle Gill testified that she gave defendant and McGee permission to use her car the night before the incident. She further acknowledged that the prosecution possessed what appeared to be her keys for that car.
¶ 11 Modlinger was 92 years old at the time of trial. By November 2016, she had lived at her residence for more than 50 years. Her home was first broken into on November 12, 2016. That time, the intruder stole money and her cell phone. Modlinger bought another phone and kept it in bed beside her at night because she was frightened.
¶ 12 Six days later, on November 18, 2016, Modlinger heard a noise in the middle of the night. She immediately called 911 to report that someone had broken into her home. Modlinger gave the dispatcher her home's intersection when two men walked into the room. One of them had a "white thing" covering his face; he hit Modlinger in the face with a plastic laundry basket that she kept near her bed.
¶ 13 The assailant whose face was covered ordered her to get out of bed, and when she did, he lifted her mattress to search for money. He then grabbed Modlinger and started beating her. She described being "pounded up and down and thinking [her] legs [were] breaking." The next thing she remembered was that a police officer arrived. Modlinger testified that her face was bleeding and that she suffered physical pain that continued through the time of trial.
¶ 14 McGee testified on defendant's behalf. He acknowledged that he had pled guilty to residential burglary and home invasion of Modlinger's residence. According to McGee, around midnight on the morning of the break-in, he, defendant, defendant's girlfriend, and others traveled by car to a tavern. After leaving the tavern, members of the group parted ways until defendant, McGee, and a man named James Beales were left in the car. McGee testified that Beales drove and that he ultimately dropped off defendant on a corner. McGee and Beales then drove around for 20 minutes or so and smoked cannabis while plotting the break-in.
¶ 15 McGee testified that Beales selected Modlinger's home. When they arrived, Beales kicked the door in. Beales then dragged Modlinger out of bed while McGee searched for money. McGee stated that they had been in her home for 10 to 15 minutes when he opened the curtain to "check[ ] the premises." At that point, a police officer shone his light on McGee. McGee told Beales that they had to leave, and both men ran from the home in different directions.
¶ 16 As he ran, McGee encountered defendant. McGee expressed surprise at seeing defendant but advised him to run too. Defendant told McGee that he had just conducted a drug deal and he felt that he had been set up. McGee was about to inform defendant of the break-in when an officer cornered them and ordered them to the ground.
¶ 17 McGee testified that he and defendant had been friends for more than 15 years. McGee and defendant's half-sister were cousins, although defendant was not related to him by blood.
¶ 18 At the jury instructions conference, instructions such as IPI Criminal No. 2.03 ("Presumption Of Innocence—Reasonable Doubt—Burden Of Proof Generally") and IPI Criminal No. 3.12 ("Impeachment Of A Witness By Prior Conviction") were given without objection. Defendant did, however, object to the State's tender of IPI Criminal No. 3.17 ("Testimony Of An Accomplice"). IPI Criminal No. 3.17 provides:
¶ 19 Relying on this court's decision in People v. Rivera , 166 Ill. 2d 279, 209 Ill.Dec. 767, 652 N.E.2d 307 (1995), the State argued that this instruction was proper regarding McGee's testimony. It acknowledged that certain appellate court decisions had deemed it inappropriate to give IPI Criminal No. 3.17 when the accomplice witness's testimony completely exonerated the defendant, but the State argued that Rivera superseded those cases. The State also observed that McGee's testimony did not exonerate defendant with respect to the charge of resisting arrest.
¶ 20 The trial court recognized that the issue was significant. Therefore, it took a recess to review Rivera and other relevant cases. Upon its return, the trial court discussed Rivera, People v. Touhy , 361 Ill. 332, 197 N.E. 849 (1935), and other decisions in detail. In the court's view, the cases provided that where a defense witness's testimony failed to completely exonerate the defendant—and in fact, corroborated the State's case in an important way—the trial judge has discretion to give IPI Criminal No. 3.17.
¶ 21 Here, the trial court found that aspects of McGee's testimony corroborated the State's case on the charge of resisting or obstructing a peace officer. It also observed that McGee had pled guilty to offenses related to the break-in at issue in the proceedings. The trial court found that it was proper for the jury to hear McGee's testimony, but the court found it equally proper "for the jury to be alerted that this is the kind of testimony that Illinois courts have said should be treated with...
To continue reading
Request your trial