People v. Griffin
| Citation | 2022 IL App (1st) 190499,203 N.E.3d 383,461 Ill.Dec. 229 |
| Docket Number | 1-19-0499 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 2022 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
2022 IL App (1st) 190499
203 N.E.3d 383
461 Ill.Dec. 229
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Keith GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1-19-0499
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SECOND DIVISION.
Filed March 29, 2022
James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Abigail Hogan Elmer, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Daniel Piwowarczyk, and Amari Dawson, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant Keith Griffin was found guilty of the offenses of being an armed habitual criminal and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. After merging the weapons convictions into the armed habitual criminal count, the trial court sentenced defendant to eight years imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues (1) that the trial court erroneously honored defendant's demand for a speedy trial over the objection of defendant's counsel and (2) that he was denied a fair trial because of certain hearsay statements that were elicited without objection or improperly admitted into evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3 Defendant was arraigned on May 1, 2018, at which time an assistant public defender was appointed to represent him. At a status hearing on August 9, 2018, defendant's counsel informed the trial court that defendant was wishing to demand trial, that this wish was contrary to counsel's advice, and that counsel had informed defendant of the evidence not yet in his possession. The trial court then inquired of defendant personally, ensuring that he understood the charges against him and the potential sentence he would face if convicted. The trial court emphasized the extent to which defendant's liberty was at stake and reiterated to defendant that his counsel felt "like he's operating in the blind if he doesn't have this information." Defendant's counsel then stated, "It's up to you. I told you." The trial court suggested that defendant talk further with his attorney about the matter and stated, "If you start demanding trial I'll respect that but that means that he's going to come to trial and he's not even going to know what the government has against you." The case was then continued to August 27, 2018, for the completion of discovery. On that date, the prosecutor represented that all discovery had been tendered by the State, and the case was again continued for the filing of defendant's answer after counsel and defendant had reviewed the video evidence that had been tendered.
¶ 4 At the next status hearing, on September 20, 2018, defendant's counsel again stated to the trial court that defendant wanted to demand trial against counsel's advice. Defendant's counsel stated that he was still investigating a potential occurrence witness but had not yet been able to reach that person. The trial court again
addressed defendant, reminded him of the potential sentence he faced if convicted, and stated to defendant that his counsel wanted more time to ensure that he could talk to witnesses and be fully prepared to go to trial. After the trial court did this, defendant stated, "I'd like to demand trial today." The trial court then asked, "Against his advice?" The defendant responded, "Yes." The trial court then ordered the State to "pick a date over counsel's objection." The prosecutor suggested a trial date of October 3, 2018. Defense counsel stated that he was scheduled for jury trial of a homicide case that week but that he did not know if that trial would proceed. During further discussion, the trial court stated that the defendant had "been through the system before," having multiple felony convictions, and "knows what goes on in court. *** If he wants to demand trial, I'll respect that. He's in custody. He's the one that can get 30 years not his lawyer or anybody else."
¶ 5 The case proceeded to bench trial on October 3, 2018. The State presented three witnesses, the first of which was Theresa Jones (Jones). Jones testified that as of March 29, 2018, she was living in an apartment on South Racine Avenue in Chicago with her daughter Kanesha Jones (Kanesha), defendant (who was Kanesha's boyfriend), and Andre Turner. Shortly before 10 a.m. that day, Kanesha came home, and Jones noticed that Kanesha had a black eye, a footprint on her face, and bruising around her neck. About 15 minutes later, defendant came through the apartment's back door. Jones testified that defendant was acting like he had not done anything, but she said to him, "Why do you keep beating on my daughter?" Jones then picked up a stick and hit defendant three times. After that, defendant went into the bedroom he shared with Kanesha and retrieved a shotgun. Defendant came back into the room where Jones was standing, and defendant pointed the shotgun at Jones. Kanesha was standing in front of Jones, saying, "That's my mother. That's my mother." Defendant was swinging the shotgun, and he pointed it at Jones three times.
¶ 6 Jones testified that the situation calmed down, but police officers soon arrived at her door. Defendant went to the door, opened it, and shut it immediately. Defendant then ran to the back door of the apartment and out of the building. Jones opened the door and let the police officers inside. Jones was asked what she told the police about where defendant was, and, without objection, she testified that she said he ran out the back. She testified that at some point the police asked her to look out her front window and identify the person who was standing outside. She testified that she did so and identified that person as defendant. Jones was asked what she told the police that defendant had done, and without objection, she answered, "He pointed the gun at me." She was asked whether she told the police where the gun was, and without objection, she answered, "Yes, I did." She testified that the gun that defendant had was in the bedroom shared by defendant and Kanesha. She testified that she saw the police recover that gun.
¶ 7 On cross-examination, Jones testified that she had a son who was paroled to the residence where she lived. She testified that the gun did not belong to her son. She testified that she was upset with defendant because he had repeatedly beaten her daughter. She testified that she and defendant had gotten into an argument about what he had done to Kanesha and that they were "in each other's faces." She testified that when defendant ran out the back door after shutting the front door on the police, he had run straight to the back and outside without first going to Kanesha's
room. He did not have a gun in his hand when he ran out. She testified that she had not called the police, and she knew the gun was in the house when they arrived. She testified that she did not have a license to carry a gun, a firearm owners identification card, or a concealed carry license. She testified that the police did not ask if defendant was living with them in the apartment.
¶ 8 Officer Daniel McNicholas of the Chicago Police Department testified that he was working with a partner on the day at issue and was dispatched to the apartment on South Racine Avenue. The trial court overruled an objection by defendant's counsel to a question about what information Officer McNicholas had received in the dispatch about the reason why he was going to that apartment, and he answered that there had been a call of a person with a gun. He testified that when he and his partner arrived at the apartment, they knocked on the door. A person whom he identified in court as defendant opened the door and then quickly closed it. Officer McNicholas then kicked at the door, at which point Theresa Jones let them into the apartment. Officer McNicholas was asked what Jones had told them about where defendant was, and without objection, he testified that Jones said defendant was fleeing out of the back of the residence. Officer McNicholas then went toward the back of the apartment but did not see defendant anywhere inside it. He then went to talk further to Jones and Kanesha. The prosecutor then asked, "without going into the substance of what happened, while you were talking with them, did Theresa tell you that there was a gun in the apartment?" Defendant's counsel objected. The trial court overruled the objection, stating, "She was here. She was subject to cross-examination. She testified about this very thing." Officer McNicholas then answered in the affirmative. He went on to testify that Jones pointed him to where the firearm was located, and after she did so, he went into a bedroom where he found a loaded shotgun in plain view.
¶ 9 Officer McNicholas testified that he was wearing a body camera that recorded video of the interaction. Part of that video was published to the court and later admitted into evidence, with the court sustaining the objection that statements in it were hearsay and stating they would not be considered for the truth of the matters asserted. Officer McNicholas...
To continue reading
Request your trial