People v. Fields

• Decision Date: 28 February 1992
• Docket Number: No. 1-90-1968,1-90-1968
• Citation: 168 Ill.Dec. 388,226 Ill.App.3d 345,589 N.E.2d 788
• Parties: , 168 Ill.Dec. 388 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 788

589 N.E.2d 788

226 Ill.App.3d 345, 168 Ill.Dec. 388

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-90-1968.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Sixth Division.

Feb. 28, 1992.

State Appellate Defender, Chicago, Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender, Kenneth L. Jones, Asst. Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

State's Atty., County of Cook, Jack O'Malley, Chicago, Renee Goldfarb, Kathleen F. Howlett, Celeste Stewart Stack, Asst. State's Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Justice RAKOWSKI delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial, defendant-appellant Gary Fields was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to a term of seven years imprisonment. Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce defendant's oral statement into evidence in violation of defendant's fifth and sixth amendment rights under the Federal Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. V, VI); (2) whether the trial court erred in ruling that defense counsel had opened the door to a previously excluded oral statement that defendant had made to his supervisor; and (3) whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to preclude the introduction into evidence of the gun which was seized from his house. We affirm.

The following facts were elicited at the hearing on defendant's motions to quash arrest and suppress evidence. Officer Gentzle of the Hazel Crest Police Department testified that on June 8, 1988, he arrived at the scene of a shooting at 3207 Birchwood, in Hazel Crest, Illinois. Gentzle spoke to Officer Rook, who told Gentzle that the victim, Timothy Shade, had been shot and had given Rook a description of the individual who shot him. Additionally, Rook gave Gentzle a description of the assailant's car and an invoice with defendant's name on it. Gentzle was also advised that prior to the shooting, an argument between defendant and a friend of Shade's arose over the invoice.

Officer Gentzle and Detective Peers proceeded to defendant's house, which corresponded to the address on the invoice, and Gentzle observed a car in the driveway which was similar to the description of the assailant's car. When defendant came to the door, Gentzle observed that defendant matched the description of the assailant. Officer Gentzle confirmed defendant's identity and that defendant had been at the place of the shooting earlier that evening. Defendant was then placed under arrest.

Defendant's wife, Deloris Fields, testified that the night of the shooting, police knocked on her door and waited as she got her husband. She said that when defendant came to the door, he went outside and conversed with the officers. She next saw her husband being led to the car in handcuffs.

Defendant testified that after being summoned to the door, the police entered his home without permission, and that he was arrested in his living room without having stepped out the door. Defendant also testified that on June 21, 1988, 13 days after the incident, he was called to his supervisor's office at work to discuss an incident report, but denied that he made any incriminating statements.

Gentzle further testified that while at the police station, defendant admitted that he owned a gun, called his wife, and gave Gentzle permission to go and get the gun. Gentzle returned to defendant's home, and defendant's wife handed him the gun. Deloris Fields, however, stated that the police entered the home without her consent, searched her home, and returned from the bedroom with a gun.

At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress statements, Booker Matthews testified that he was the Chief of Security in the Youth Division of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendant was an employee under his supervision in 1988. According to Matthews, employment regulations dictated that defendant submit a report concerning the incident. Defendant did in fact file an incident report, and on June 21, 1988, the superintendent asked Matthews to find out what type of weapon had been involved in the incident.

Matthews called defendant that day, and left a message for defendant. Defendant returned his call, and when asked which type of gun had been used, responded that the requested information was in the incident report. At this point the conversation ended.

Matthews further testified that later that same afternoon, the defendant came, unsolicited and of his own volition, to Matthews' office. According to Matthews, defendant asked if the information regarding the weapon was in the report. Matthews did not initially ask defendant any question, but defendant himself closed the door to the office and sat down. Defendant stated that his family was extremely upset with him. At this point, Matthews said to defendant: " * * * are you trying to tell me you shot the guy?"

Defendant replied that he did shoot the victim, and further stated that his lawyer was seeking to suppress the gun, that the discharged bullet was too fragmented for comparisons, that the witness could not identify him and that defendant's lawyer told him there was about a 50/50 chance of acquittal.

The trial court denied defendant's motions to quash the arrest and to suppress the statements, finding that the conversation with Booker was initiated by defendant, in a non-custodial situation, and that defendant had not been threatened or promised anything. Thus, the trial court ruled that neither defendant's fifth or sixth amendment rights had been violated. Later, before trial, the trial court granted a defense motion in limine, ruling that the parts of the conversation with Matthews pertaining to defendant's conversations with his lawyer were inadmissible.

At trial, the People called the victim, Timothy Shade. Shade testified that on June 8, 1988, he was living with Anthony Bankshale at 3207 Birchwood in Hazel Crest. Shade answered the door at 10 p.m., and the defendant was at the door. Defendant asked to speak to Bankshale. Shade listened to the ensuing conversation between defendant and Bankshale. The two men were arguing over money, and, as defendant left, Shade heard him threaten to return and burn the house down.

About 20 minutes later, Shade and William Mason decided to go to the store. As they walked across the street, Shade saw a car approaching. Mason saw a gun in the car and warned Shade. Shade observed defendant in the car, and saw that defendant was pointing a gun at him. Shade tried to turn away, and was then shot in the shoulder. At the time, Shade was wearing Bankshale's hat and a jogging suit. Shade further stated that both himself and Bankshale were wearing dark jogging suits that night. Each testified that they were similar in height, weight and age.

The victim testified that he spoke to the police regarding the incident. Further, Shade testified that he observed the barrel of defendant's gun, and that the gun recovered from defendant's house was similar to the one he was shot with.

Next, William Sherk, a firearms examiner, testified that the rifling of the bullet recovered from the victim's body was consistent with having been fired from defendant's gun, although due to the fragmentation of the bullet, the comparison was incomplete.

Anthony Bankshale also testified. He related that he and the defendant had argued that night over a bill for landscaping services, and testified consistently with the victim's description of the argument. Bankshale gave the police a description of defendant, defendant's car and a copy of the landscaping bill. Officers Roof and Gentzle testified at trial consistent with their testimony at the hearings on the motions to suppress and quash.

Booker Matthews, defendant's supervisor at defendant's workplace, the Department of Corrections, also testified. His testimony about his conversation with defendant was consistent with his testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress. On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Matthews about the reports Matthews had made concerning his conversation with the defendant. Defense counsel referred to one of the reports, which indicated that defendant gave Matthews a detailed report of the incident, and defense counsel asked what details were given Matthews.

At this point a sidebar took place. The State argued that defense counsel had opened the door to the previously excluded statements involving the defendant and his conversations with his attorney. Defense counsel indicated that he only sought to refer to details of the actual occurrence itself. The trial court ruled that the order in limine had been violated and on redirect examination, the State was allowed to bring out the contents of the previously excluded testimony.

Defendant's wife testified at trial on behalf of defendant. Officer Gentzle had previously testified that she had told him defendant came home at about 10:30 or 11 p.m., visibly upset, that defendant had left for twenty minutes at this time and then returned. At trial, however, defendant's wife testified that her husband came home at about 10:30 or 10:45 p.m. on the night of the shooting, and simply went to the garage to punch his punching bag.

Defendant himself testified, admitting his presence at the victim's home and arguing with Bankshale, but denying that he returned and shot the victim. Defendant, as he had during the hearing on pre-trial motions, denied making any admissions to Matthews.

The first issue we address is whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce defendant's statements in violation of the fifth or sixth amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional rights by the introduction of any part of his statements to Matthews.

Defendant acknowledges that there was some difference between the testimony of Matthews and himself regarding the...