People v. Glasper, No. 103937.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtFitzgerald
Citation234 Ill.2d 173,334 Ill.Dec. 575,917 N.E.2d 401
Decision Date18 June 2009
Docket NumberNo. 103937.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Michael GLASPER, Appellant.
917 N.E.2d 401
234 Ill.2d 173
334 Ill.Dec. 575
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,
v.
Michael GLASPER, Appellant.
No. 103937.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
June 18, 2009.
Rehearing Denied September 28, 2009.

[917 N.E.2d 406]

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Patricia Unsinn, Deputy Defender, Elizabeth A. Botti and Barbara C. Kamm, Assistant Appellate Defenders, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, Chicago (James E. Fitzgerald and Peter D. Fischer, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Chief Justice FITZGERALD delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.


Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant, Michael Glasper, was convicted of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of 80 and 30 years, respectively. On appeal, defendant raised several claims of error, and the appellate court affirmed his conviction. No. 1-04-3005 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). Defendant sought leave to appeal to this court, asserting that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to ask venire members whether they would be biased against defendant if he did not testify, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (177 Ill.2d R. 431(b)) and this court's holding in People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472, 83 Ill.Dec. 128, 469 N.E.2d 1062 (1984). Defendant also claimed that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial when the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. We granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal (210 Ill.2d R. 315(a)) and now affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

BACKGROUND

In August 2001, Eugene Banks sold drugs on the corner of Iowa and Lamon streets in Chicago. Donnell Simmons attempted to take over the drug trade on that corner by ordering Banks to stop selling and threatening him with a gun. Brian and Sammie Simmons worked for Donnell and were selling drugs on that corner during the late evening hours of August 11, 2001, when a group of men opened fire on them. Brian was shot twice

917 N.E.2d 407

and he died from his wounds. There is no evidence that Sammie was harmed. Defendant was charged with murder and attempted murder after he admitted, in a videotaped confession, that he and Banks, along with Marcus Williams, Jamal Phillips, and Tremaine Kimbrough, shot at Brian and Sammie.

At trial, Dr. Mitra Kalelkar, a Cook County medical examiner, testified that she performed an autopsy on the body of Brian Simmons. Brian was shot in the head and the bullet was recovered at the base of his brain. Brian was also shot in the right buttock. There were abrasions on Brian's face consistent with falling face-first after being shot from behind.

Michael Farris testified that he was standing near the corner of Iowa and Lamon with two women and their children at 11 p.m. on the date of the shooting. He saw defendant and two other men, whom he identified as Williams and Phillips, come out into the street. Farris explained that he has known defendant since "childhood." At the time of the shooting, Farris had known Williams and Phillips for about two years. The men were all wearing sweatshirts with the hoods up over their heads, and each was carrying a gun. Farris noticed that Brian and Sammie were also on the street, near the corner by the alley, and they did not have weapons. Someone on the street yelled "L.A.," meaning "police," and defendant, Williams, and Phillips ran through a yard. They soon emerged in the alley where Brian and Sammie were standing. Farris testified that he saw Williams and Phillips running toward Brian and Sammie while shooting, but he did not see defendant. He admitted that he previously signed a handwritten statement and gave testimony before a grand jury indicating that he saw defendant shooting with Williams and Phillips. Farris also admitted that he has been convicted of several drug offenses, is a gang member, and did not give police information about the instant crime until he was arrested for criminal drug conspiracy occurring in the area of Iowa and Lamon two months after the shooting in question.

Keith Price testified that he has known defendant since grammar school. Approximately two weeks after the shooting, defendant told Price that he, Williams, and Phillips "got at" Brian, and "after they made sure he [Brian] was down, they helped Lou[1] [Banks] get at Sam." Defendant further explained that Banks fainted after the shooting and defendant tried to help him, but could not get him up. Defendant also told Price that he left behind a hooded sweatshirt and a gun while he was trying to help Banks. Price admitted that he did not give this information to police until two months after the shooting when he was arrested for criminal drug conspiracy related to drug sales at Iowa and Lamon. Price further stated that he was given consideration by the State in the conspiracy case in exchange for his testimony. Price pled guilty to the conspiracy charge and received TASC probation. Price admitted that he was a "drug addict" in 2001 when he gave police information about the instant case. Price also admitted that he had previously spent time in the penitentiary.

Officer Gerald Ostafin, a forensic investigator, testified that he was called to the murder scene to collect evidence. He found 15 to 17 cartridge casings around the area of the murder, a fired bullet near the victim's leg, and some bullet fragments. In addition, a semiautomatic weapon commonly known as a Tech 9 was recovered just around the corner from the murder scene, on Walton Street. The

917 N.E.2d 408

weapon was found on the sidewalk and a magazine containing 10 rounds of live ammunition was found a couple of feet away, on the grass. Officer Ostafin testified that while processing the scene, he spoke with Officer Akins, who showed him a nine-millimeter handgun wrapped in a black hooded sweatshirt. Officer Ostafin attempted to get fingerprints from the gun, but was unsuccessful.

Officer Daniel Conway testified that on August 11, 2001, he heard a radio message indicating that shots were fired and a foot chase was in progress near the area of Iowa and Lamon. Officer Conway went to that location and saw Banks in police custody. After speaking to other officers, he retraced the route of the foot chase and found a blue-steel Tech 9 on Walton Street with the magazine belonging to the weapon nearby.

Officer Jimmy Akins testified that he and his partner responded to a call of shots fired in the area of Lamon and Iowa. He spoke to a person on the street and then went to a specific address on Walton Street. He found a black hooded sweatshirt in the gangway at that location. Officer Akins inspected the sweatshirt and found a chrome, nine-millimeter handgun containing seven live rounds of ammunition wrapped inside. He ejected the magazine from the gun, wrapped it back in the sweatshirt and then took the items to a well-lit area near other officers, about 100 feet away. Officer Akins explained that he did not call for evidence technicians or attempt to secure the area because it was dark in the gangway, unknown people were nearby, and he did not feel safe. On cross-examination, Officer Akins was asked whether he was equipped with a bulletproof vest, gun, and radio when he recovered the gun in the gangway, and he stated that he was.

The parties stipulated that Officer Gallagly would testify that he participated in the foot chase and saw Williams drop a handgun. Officer Gallagly recovered the weapon, which was a loaded, nine-millimeter, semiautomatic pistol with nine live rounds of ammunition.

Detective James Gilger testified that he was assigned to investigate the instant crime on August 11, 2001. Detective Gilger spoke to Banks, who had been taken into custody, and Sammie, who had come to the police station for questioning. Eventually, Detective Gilger started looking for defendant, Phillips, and Williams. One month later, on September 12, 2001, Detective Gilger learned that defendant had been taken into custody. Detective Gilger explained that there was a manpower shortage in the police department that day, because it was the day after the September 11, 2001, attacks, and he was working alone, uncharacteristically dressed in uniform. Detective Gilger spoke to defendant at 1:10 p.m. and read him his Miranda rights. Defendant denied involvement in the murder, but stated that he was aware that Banks had been taken into custody for the crime. A short while later, Detective Gilger confronted defendant with certain information and "suggested that he [defendant] tell the truth at that point." Defendant gave an oral statement implicating himself in the crime. Detective Gilger pointed out that defendant's statement shed new light on his investigation because defendant implicated Kimbrough in the offense.

Assistant State's Attorney Kim Ward testified that she spoke to defendant after he gave his oral statement to Detective Gilger. In the course of their conversation, defendant agreed to give a videotaped statement. The video was played for the jury. In the video, defendant explained that Banks sold drugs on Iowa and Lamon.

917 N.E.2d 409

On August 11, 2001, defendant, Williams, Phillips, and Kimbrough met up with Banks and learned that he was angry because Donnell threatened him with a gun and told him that he wanted to take over drug sales on Iowa and Lamon. Defendant stated that Banks wanted to kill Donnell and Sammie, so the group drove around in Kimbrough's truck looking for them. They eventually found Donnell, but did not approach him. Defendant explained that he went into a store, and when he came out, he saw that the rest of the group had put on black hooded sweatshirts. There were five nine-millimeter guns in the truck. Sometime later,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
568 practice notes
  • People v. Mister, No. 4–13–0180.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 23, 2015
    ...fairness of the defendant's trial.” ’ ” Watt, 2013 IL App (2d) 120183, ¶ 38, 377 Ill.Dec. 258, 1 N.E.3d 1145 (quoting People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173, 197–98, 334 Ill.Dec. 575, 917 N.E.2d 401, 416 (2009), quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167, 186, 294 Ill.Dec. 55, 830 N.E.2d 467, 479 ......
  • People v. McCoy, No. 1–13–0988.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 15, 2016
    ...by the [United States] Supreme Court.” Clark, 2016 IL 118845, ¶ 46, 401 Ill.Dec. 638, 50 N.E.3d 1120 (discussing People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173, 334 Ill.Dec. 575, 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009), and People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598, 345 Ill.Dec. 560, 939 N.E.2d 403 (2010) ). Thus, second-prong ......
  • People v. Jackson, No. 3–14–0300.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 9, 2015
    ...and undermine the fairness of the defendant's trial.” ’ ” Id. at 614, 345 Ill.Dec. 560, 939 N.E.2d 403 (quoting People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173, 197–98, 334 Ill.Dec. 575, 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009), quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167, 186, 294 Ill.Dec. 55, 830 N.E.2d 467 (2005) ). The su......
  • Kaull v. Kaull, No. 2–13–0175.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 22, 2014
    ...Ill. 124, 127, 103 N.E.2d 477 (1952). There is a presumption that the rules will be obeyed and enforced as written. People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173, 189, 334 Ill.Dec. 575, 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009). Toward this end, we interpret supreme court rules in the same manner as statutes. See Ill. S.C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
575 cases
  • People v. Mister, No. 4–13–0180.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 23, 2015
    ...fairness of the defendant's trial.” ’ ” Watt, 2013 IL App (2d) 120183, ¶ 38, 377 Ill.Dec. 258, 1 N.E.3d 1145 (quoting People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173, 197–98, 334 Ill.Dec. 575, 917 N.E.2d 401, 416 (2009), quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167, 186, 294 Ill.Dec. 55, 830 N.E.2d 467, 479 ......
  • People v. McCoy, No. 1–13–0988.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 15, 2016
    ...by the [United States] Supreme Court.” Clark, 2016 IL 118845, ¶ 46, 401 Ill.Dec. 638, 50 N.E.3d 1120 (discussing People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173, 334 Ill.Dec. 575, 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009), and People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598, 345 Ill.Dec. 560, 939 N.E.2d 403 (2010) ). Thus, second-prong ......
  • People v. Jackson, No. 3–14–0300.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 9, 2015
    ...and undermine the fairness of the defendant's trial.” ’ ” Id. at 614, 345 Ill.Dec. 560, 939 N.E.2d 403 (quoting People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173, 197–98, 334 Ill.Dec. 575, 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009), quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167, 186, 294 Ill.Dec. 55, 830 N.E.2d 467 (2005) ). The su......
  • Kaull v. Kaull, No. 2–13–0175.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 22, 2014
    ...Ill. 124, 127, 103 N.E.2d 477 (1952). There is a presumption that the rules will be obeyed and enforced as written. People v. Glasper, 234 Ill.2d 173, 189, 334 Ill.Dec. 575, 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009). Toward this end, we interpret supreme court rules in the same manner as statutes. See Ill. S.C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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