People v. Golden
| Decision Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2-20-0207 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (2d) 200207,191 N.E.3d 814,455 Ill.Dec. 507 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky GOLDEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Rachael J. Leah, of Law Office of Rachael J. Leah, LLC, of Lisle, for appellant.
Richard D. Amato, State's Attorney, of Sycamore (Patrick Delfino, Edward R. Psenicka, and Laura Bialon, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Following a bench trial in the circuit court of DeKalb County, defendant, Ricky Golden, was convicted of one count of aggravated domestic battery ( 720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a-5) (West 2018)) and two counts of domestic battery (id. § 12-3.2(a)), for which he received an eight-year term of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion to admit certain hearsay statements as substantive evidence under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing ( Ill. R. Evid. 804(b)(5) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011)). Defendant also contends that he was denied his right to a speedy trial, that the evidence of his guilt was insufficient, and that the trial court incorrectly imposed a Class X sentence. We affirm.
¶ 3 We summarize the relevant facts appearing in the record on appeal. On January 30, 2018, defendant engaged in an altercation with Tiera Atwood at Atwood's apartment on Ridge Drive in DeKalb. Police officers were dispatched to the apartment. When the officers arrived, defendant was not present, and the officers took a verbal and a handwritten statement from Atwood; they also took photographs of Atwood and the apartment. On that date, defendant was charged in a criminal complaint with one count of aggravated domestic battery and two counts of domestic battery. Also on that date, defendant was on bond in three pending 2017 misdemeanor domestic battery cases involving Atwood (2017 domestic battery cases).
¶ 4 On February 20, 2018, defendant was arrested on the charges in this case. At his arraignment, the trial court appointed the same attorney to represent defendant who was representing him in the 2017 domestic battery cases. In addition, the trial court ordered that defendant have no contact with Atwood.
¶ 5 On March 19, 2018, defendant was indicted in this case. Count I alleged that defendant committed aggravated domestic battery, a Class 2 felony, by grabbing Atwood by the neck and impeding her normal breathing or blood circulation. 720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a-5), (b) (West 2018). Count II alleged that defendant committed domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor, by knowingly causing bodily injury when he grabbed Atwood's neck and kicked her. Id. § 12-3.2(a)(1), (b). Count III alleged that defendant committed domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor, by knowingly making insulting contact with Atwood by grabbing her around the neck. Id. § 12-3.2(a)(2), (b).
¶ 6 On March 22, 2018, defendant was presented for arraignment on the indictment and for a hearing on defendant's motion to reduce bond in the instant case and the State's motion to revoke bond in the 2017 domestic battery cases. During the discussions, it was noted that defendant had an upcoming May 3, 2018, trial on one of the 2017 domestic battery cases, and defense counsel stated that defendant had not filed a speedy-trial demand. The State indicated that it had tendered to counsel copies of calls from jail between defendant and Atwood. The State represented that, in the calls, defendant and Atwood were discussing the cases and "what she needs to be doing," including giving to defense counsel and the State "different statements as to what really happened." Defense counsel indicated that Atwood had contacted him and requested that the bond's no-contact conditions between her and defendant be lifted. The trial court did not address the no-contact conditions, which thus remained in place, and it denied defendant's motion to reduce bond.
¶ 7 On April 6, 2018, defendant filed a motion to modify the conditions of his bond, seeking permission to communicate with his two children, which would also entail incidental communication with Atwood. On April 12, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. During the discussion, the State indicated that Atwood had not been cooperative; defense counsel indicated that Atwood was "much more cooperative" when speaking to him. The court granted defendant's motion in part, allowing defendant to have telephone contact with his 12-year-old child and denying contact with either Atwood or defendant's 4-year-old child.
¶ 8 On May 3, 2018, the matter was before the trial court ostensibly for a bench trial in one of the 2017 domestic battery cases. The State asserted that it was not ready to proceed on the trial, because Atwood "ha[d] not been able to be located or served." According to the State, at least two subpoenas to different possible addresses had been issued but had not been returned. In addition, the prosecutor in the 2017 domestic battery case set for trial represented that he had tried to serve Atwood personally when he anticipated that she might be appearing in court on another matter. Defendant objected to the continuance in the scheduled 2017 domestic battery case. Defendant observed that he was not taken by surprise by the continuance caused by Atwood's absence and opined that he believed obtaining Atwood's presence for trial in any of the pending matters would likely be problematic. Defendant informed the trial court that, on March 6, 2018, Atwood had provided him with an affidavit recanting her allegations regarding the January 30, 2018, incident. Defendant requested that the court review his bond, based on the State's anticipated difficulty in securing Atwood's presence for trial. The court granted the State's motion to continue over defendant's objection but the order showed that the continuance to May 10, 2018, was by agreement of the parties, although there is also a note stating that defendant objected.
¶ 9 On May 4, 2018, defendant filed a motion to reduce his bond. On May 10, the trial court held a hearing on the bond reduction motion. At the outset, the parties discussed Atwood's recantation. Defendant read into the record the March 6, 2018, recantation affidavit in which Atwood averred that she made the 911 call and statements to the police because she discovered that defendant was carrying on an affair with another woman. Atwood further averred that, when she confronted the other woman, they fought and Atwood received her injuries in that altercation. The State responded that it had adopted a wait-and-see policy regarding Atwood, choosing not to reach out to Atwood but to wait for Atwood to reinitiate contact with the State. The State also noted that it believed that it would be able to serve Atwood with process at some unspecified time in the future.
¶ 10 The trial court granted the motion to reduce bond, anticipating that this would result in defendant's release from custody; in addition, the court expressly imposed a no-contact provision between defendant and Atwood. Defendant noted that he wished to file a speedy-trial demand but, because he was being released, he needed to revise the demand to reflect that he was out of custody. The State then changed its election from one of the 2017 domestic battery cases to the instant case. A jury trial was set for June 18, 2018, and defendant was released on unrestricted electronic home monitoring; the continuance was expressly attributed to the State. We note that, although defendant announced that he was planning to file a speedy-trial demand, no speedy-trial demand appears in the record.1
¶ 11 On May 21, 2018, the State issued a subpoena for Atwood to compel her presence at the scheduled June 2018 trial. The subpoena was addressed to defendant and Atwood's residence in DeKalb.
¶ 12 On May 30, 2018, the DeKalb County Sheriff's Department filed an electronic monitoring violation report, alleging that defendant had violated the no-contact provision of his bond. That same day, the State filed a motion to revoke or increase the amount of defendant's bond. At a hearing on May 30, 2018, the trial court set defendant's bond at $5000. Defendant successfully posted bond but remained in custody because he did not have suitable housing for the purpose of electronic home monitoring. Defendant remained in custody for about four weeks until he was finally released on electronic home monitoring.
¶ 13 On June 5, 2018, while still in physical custody, defendant filed a motion to modify his bond, seeking to eliminate the electronic home monitoring requirement so that he could finally be released from custody. The motion to modify was scheduled to be heard on June 14, 2018.
¶ 14 On June 12, 2018, the State filed a motion to continue the jury trial in this matter. The State averred that it needed a continuance because Atwood had not been served with a subpoena and it needed more time to file unspecified substantive motions. On June 14, 2018, the trial court granted the State's motion to continue, over defendant's objection. The order also directed the parties to file their motions by June 28, 2018. The time for the delay was attributed to the State, and the matter was set for a jury trial on September 10, 2018.
¶ 15 On June 15, 2018, the State filed a May 21, 2018, subpoena it had issued to compel Atwood's presence at the scheduled June 2018 trial. The subpoena was marked, "Recalled per ASA."
¶ 16 On June 28, 2018, the parties filed their motions in limine and notices. Relevantly, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to admit certain hearsay statements pursuant to the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing and Rule 804(b)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Evidence (forfeiture motion) ( Ill. R. Evid. 804(b)(5) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011)). The State alleged that d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chatman
...their presence at trial. Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56, 74, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). ¶ 49 In People v. Golden , 2021 IL App (2d) 200207, 455 Ill.Dec. 507, 191 N.E.3d 814, the Second District held that in instances where a witness is unavailable due to the opposing party's wron......
- In re Sinha