People v. Flores

• Decision Date: 14 November 2014
• Docket Number: No. 1–12–1786.,1–12–1786.
• Citation: 21 N.E.3d 1227
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Oscar FLORES, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

21 N.E.3d 1227

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Oscar FLORES, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–12–1786.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

Nov. 14, 2014.

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Rachel Moran, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Christine Cook, and Peter Maltese, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice McBRIDEdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendantOscar Flores was found guilty of the first degree murder of Victor Casillas and the attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm of Lionel Medina.Defendant was subsequently sentenced to a total of 80 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.

¶ 2Defendant appeals, arguing that: (1)the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his July statements, which were involuntary and were obtained in violation of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney; (2)the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense when it barred him from presenting evidence of his suppressed May statements to police; (3)defendant was denied a fair trial when the trial court admitted prejudicial photos from MySpace without proper authentication and foundation; and (4) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony that defendant's photo was in a Chicago police database and he had previously been arrested.

¶ 3 The shootings occurred around 8:30 p.m. on March 19, 2007, near West 30th Street and South Kildare Avenue in Chicago.Defendant was interrogated and gave statements in May and July 2007.In May, defendant was arrested and held nearly 50 hours in an interrogation room.Defendant eventually gave statements admitting that he was the shooter.In July, he was arrested again and interrogated by one of the same detectives.Defendant again admitted during questioning to being the shooter.Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress both his May and July statements on the grounds that: (1) his May statement was obtained in violation of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent; (2) his July statement was obtained in violation of his right to remain silent; and (3) both statements were involuntary.At the hearing, neither party presented any witness testimony, but relied on the recordings of the interrogations.After viewing the recordings, the trial court granted the motion as to the May statements, finding that defendant explicitly asked for a lawyer and the detectives improperly reinitiated questioning 14 to 15 hours later.The court did not reach the question of whether the statements were involuntary.

¶ 4 As to the July statements, the trial court held that defendant's May request for an attorney was no longer in effect.The court found that defendant did not invoke his right to remain silent because even though defendant responded, “Not really.No.” when asked if he wanted to speak with the detectives, defendant“still [kept] engaging the detectives.”The court concluded that defendant's Miranda rights were not violated.The court further found that the statement was voluntary and defendant's will was not overborne.

¶ 5Defendant filed a motion to reconsider and asked for a ruling on whether his May statement was voluntary.The trial court denied the motion to reconsider, but found the statements were voluntarily made.Defendant also filed a motion to suppress his statements on the basis that the recordings were inaudible, which the trial court denied.Defendant later filed a motion to reopen his motion to suppress his July statements, arguing that the statements were obtained in violation of his request for counsel.The trial court denied the motion, finding that the request for counsel was not clearly expressed.

¶ 6The State filed a motion in limine to bar defendant from introducing his May statements at trial.Defendant responded that he should be allowed to admit evidence of the May interrogation to explain why he confessed in July.The trial court granted the motion, finding that the suppressed statements were inadmissible hearsay.The court stated that defendant would have to satisfy an exception to the hearsay rule in order for any portion of the statements to be admitted.

¶ 7Defendant also filed a pretrial motion to exclude evidence of MySpace photographs depicting either defendant or Casillas, based on lack of foundation and prejudice.At the hearing, trial counsel argued that “no one is going to be able to testify whose MySpace page they actually came from, or how the detectives were even allowed onto that website.”Counsel asserted there was “no way to lay a foundation for this.”The trial court allowed the admission of two photos at trial, finding that the photographs were not prejudicial and were relevant to the police's course of investigation.

¶ 8 The following evidence was presented at defendant's October 2011 jury trial.The State presented the testimony of former assistant State's Attorney (ASA)Fred Sheppard.Sheppard testified that he obtained a videotaped statement from defendant at 1 a.m. on July 15, 2007.The videotape was played for the jury.Defendant stated that he joined the Latin Kings when he was 15 or 16.His nickname was “Little Panther” and no one called him “Little Rowdy.”

¶ 9 On the day of the offense, defendant met Macias at South Drake Avenue and West 26th Street.They got in a van driven by a friend.They rode around for a while, and the van was parked near Drake and 27th Street.A short time later, Macias suggested they get in the van.Macias got in the driver's seat and defendant was in the passenger seat.While driving, they stopped by Macias's house.Macias went in the house and returned with a white plastic bag, which he placed under the driver's seat.

¶ 10 Macias then drove toward the Two–Six neighborhood.While they were driving, Macias took a gun out of the bag.Macias drove near 30th Street.Defendant said he asked what Macias was doing and Macias told him to stop being a “p* * *y.”When they saw one or two “gangbangers” on the sidewalk, Macias handed defendant the gun and said, “come on p* * *y.”Macias slowed down the van and defendant fired about four shots.Macias started to drive toward Latin King territory, but on the way, they saw a couple of men and one of the them made a gesture of disrespect to the Latin Kings.Macias told defendant to shoot them again, defendant then fired two or three shots.Macias then drove back to the Latin King neighborhood.He dropped defendant off and defendant left the gun with Macias.

¶ 11Lionel Medina testified at trial and admitted he was a member of the Two–Six gang.On March 19, 2007, he was near 28th Street and Kildare when he saw a two-tone blue and gray van at a stop sign.The passenger pulled out a gun and fired.Medina was shot, but survived.Medina was not able to make any identifications in two lineups.

¶ 12Leonardo Gonzalez testified that on March 19, 2007, he was walking with Victor Casillas on 30th Street when they heard gunshots.Both Gonzalez and Casillas were members of the Two–Six gang.They continued walking until he heard a vehicle behind them.He saw a blue and white van.According to Gonzalez, Casillas made a gang sign disrespectful to the Latin Kings.The passenger in the van fired two shots.Casillas started to run and Gonzalez fell down.He then saw that Casillas had been shot.Casillas fell down near 30th Street and Karlov Avenue.

¶ 13 Gonzalez was unable to make an in-court identification.Gonzalez testified that he viewed a lineup in May 2007, but he equivocated on whom he identified.He said he identified Casillas's killer, but did not know if he identified defendant.Gonzalez admitted that he gave a statement to an ASA in May 2007.Two photographs were attached to the statement.One showed Casillas with the phrase “Lil Bonez Rotsk” written on it, which was disrespectful to Casillas.The second photo was of a Latin King with the caption “Little Rowdy.”Gonzalez did not remember if he identified “Little Rowdy” as the shooter.The State later called the ASA who took the statement and she testified that Gonzalez identified defendant as the shooter.

¶ 14 Gonzalez also could not recall his grand jury testimony.The State later called the ASA who presented Gonzalez at the grand jury.She testified that Gonzalez identified defendant as the shooter.

¶ 15 On cross-examination, Gonzalez stated that he did not get a good look at the people in the van because he was focused on the gun.Gonzalez testified that after the shooting, Antonio Casillas, Victor Casillas's brother and also a Two–Six member, showed him a photo with the caption “Little Rowdy Drake Two–Six.”He said Antonio told him to identify the person in the photograph as the shooter.On redirect, Gonzalez maintained that he only identified defendant because Antonio showed him the photograph.

¶ 16Antonio Casillas testified that he was the older brother of Victor Casillas.Antonio stated that he had viewed a MySpace page and saw pictures of his brother and defendant.He said he recognized defendant as “Little Rowdy.”He said he then looked through a Farragut High School yearbook and found “Little Rowdy” under defendant's name.Antonio viewed the MySpace pages with the help of his cousin because Antonio did not have a MySpace account.Antonio was given permission to use the password for the account of a friend of Antonio's cousin.He used this account to send a friend request to “Little Rowdy.”When the friend request was accepted, he was able to view photographs.Antonio testified that he approached a police officer at his brother's funeral with defendant's name.A couple days later, two detectives came to his house and Antonio showed the detectives the MySpace page.

¶ 17 Antonio was shown three photographs from...