People v. Harper, 061319 ILCA1, 1-16-2296
| Opinion Judge | BURKE JUSTICE. |
| Party Name | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BEDNACO HARPER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Judge Panel | BURKE JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice McBride and Justice Gordon concurred in the judgment. |
| Case Date | June 13, 2019 |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois, First District |
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County No. 11 CR 21034, Honorable Stanley J. Sacks, Judge presiding.
BURKE JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice McBride and Justice Gordon concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
BURKE JUSTICE.
¶ 1 Held: Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder and concealment of a homicidal death and his aggregate 40-year sentence are affirmed where the trial court did not err in refusing to provide the jury with an instruction on second-degree murder based on mutual combat, his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, and the court did not sentence him excessively. Cause remanded, however, so defendant can file a motion in the trial court to correct his mittimus.
¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant Bednaco Harper was convicted of first-degree murder and concealment of a homicidal death. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to an aggregate total of 40 years' imprisonment, 35 years for murder and 5 years for concealment of a homicidal death, which by law had to be served consecutively. On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred by refusing to provide the jury with an instruction on second-degree murder based on mutual combat; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in multiple manners, but predominantly where, despite successfully filing a pretrial motion in limine to bar evidence of him cutting his arm while in an interview room at the police station, counsel allowed video evidence of him doing so to be given to the jury during its deliberations; (3) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence on him; and (4) his mittimus must be corrected to accurately reflect his convictions. For the reasons that follow, we affirm defendant's convictions and sentence, but remand the matter so defendant can file a motion to correct his mittimus in the trial court.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 A. Pre-Trial
¶ 5 On November 7, 2011, the dead body of Jermaine Reynolds was discovered in a bedroom closet in an apartment belonging to defendant. The police subsequently took defendant into custody and placed him in an interview room at the police station from 5:50 p.m. on November 9 until just after midnight on November 11. During the time defendant was in the room, the police questioned him for periods of time and took him outside the room occasionally. But for the majority of the time, defendant was in the room by himself. And every minute he was in the room, the police recorded him except for when his attorney entered the room. The following is a synopsis of the video recording of defendant.
¶ 6 At approximately 5:50 p.m. on November 9, defendant entered the interview room. An hour later, the police informed defendant of his Miranda rights and he invoked his right to counsel. Thereafter, defendant was alone in the interview room, at times sitting on a bench and at times laying on the bench. Over the next hour, defendant periodically used a small, unknown object to cut his left arm, sometimes using forceful slashes. On occasion, he rubbed the object back and forth against the bench, as if he were attempting to sharpen the object. At around 7:43 p.m., a police officer entered the room and took photographs of defendant's head, face, arms, hands and upper body. Once the officer left the room, a detective entered the room and informed defendant that he was under arrest for first-degree murder but had not yet been charged. Defendant sat back down on the bench and smoked a cigarette given to him by the detective. The detective left the room. At approximately 8 p.m., defendant attempted to tie something around his neck and appeared to pull that object while sitting down and while lying down. For about 15 minutes, defendant continued this behavior until he heard the detective about to enter his room at which point he removed the object from his neck and put it in his hands. The detective entered the room and informed defendant that his attorney had arrived. While waiting for his attorney, defendant did not harm himself. At around 8:21 p.m., his attorney entered the room, and the video went all black and contained no sound. The video and sound re-appeared at 8:48 p.m. when his attorney left the room.
¶ 7 For the next hour or so, defendant slept on the bench, appeared to cut his arm again and at times pulled the object around his neck. From about 10 p.m. the night of November 9 until 10:30 a.m. the following day, November 10, defendant mostly slept except for some instances where he left the interview room. From 10:30 a.m. until 1:08 p.m., defendant was awake, at times standing, walking around the room, sitting on the bench and eating food. At 1:08 p.m., defendant laid down on the floor and appeared to try and fall asleep, which lasted until about 2 p.m. Defendant then was awake and mostly sitting up, though he did lie down on the bench for a little while. Shortly before 3 p.m., defendant again rubbed the small, unknown object back and forth against the bench, which he continued to do until about 3:10 p.m. when he left the room. When he returned some five minutes later, defendant sat on the bench and at times continued his motion of appearing to sharpen the object, but eventually, he laid back down on the floor.
¶ 8 At around 4:05 p.m., defendant stood up then sat on the bench, and again appeared to sharpen the object. Three minutes later, defendant used the object to cut his left wrist and arm several times over the course of the next 30 minutes. At 4:36 p.m., a detective informed defendant that the police had a search warrant to obtain his DNA, noticed his arm and asked if he needed a doctor. Defendant responded that he was fine. An officer proceeded to take defendant's DNA and left the room. Again alone in the room, defendant proceeded to cut his arm several times for a few minutes. At nearly 4:51 p.m., the video cut out and did not resume until 5:35 p.m.1 When the video resumed, defendant had a bandage on his left arm and two detectives were in the process of giving him Miranda warnings. Afterward, defendant informed the detectives that the wounds on his arm were self-inflicted, he did not "plan on making it through this" and he "did not feel like living no more." For portions of the next two or so hours, defendant discussed what happened between him and Reynolds with the detectives. At around 7:15 p.m., the detectives left the room.
¶ 9 Over the next five and a half hours, defendant was in the interview room alone with periodic entrances by a detective. During this time, defendant laid down and slept, sat on the bench, and ate food. He also fiddled with his bandage, was able to remove portions of it from his arm, and at times, appeared to cut himself again. At 12:45 a.m. on November 11, a detective walked into the room and noticed that defendant's arm was bleeding through the bandage. The detective asked defendant if wanted to go to the hospital, and defendant agreed. At 1 a.m., defendant went to the hospital, and the recording stopped.2
¶ 10 The following month, a grand jury indicted defendant on three counts of first-degree murder, one count of armed robbery and one count of concealment of a homicidal death.
¶ 11 As the case proceeded toward trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the statements made to the detectives, arguing that his emotional state, as evinced by his self-harming behavior and suicidal ideations, precluded him from appreciating and understanding the full meaning of his Miranda rights. The trial court denied the motion.
¶ 12 Defendant later filed a motion in limine requesting, in part, that the State be barred at trial from: (1) playing the portions of the video recording of him cutting his wrist; (2) commenting on him cutting his wrist; (3) referencing that he had to be transported to a hospital for treatment and a psychiatric evaluation following the incidents in the interview room; and (4) showing any of the photographs that depicted his self-inflicted wounds. The State did not object to defendant's requests and noted that it had already omitted these instances from the video it would play for the jury at trial. The trial court granted the motion in limine on these matters. Prior to trial, the State dismissed one of the additional counts of first-degree murder and the count of armed robbery.
¶ 13 B. Trial
¶ 14 1. The State's Case-in-Chief
¶ 15 In the State's case, the evidence showed that, in the beginning of November 2011, Robert Square, a friend of both defendant and Jermaine Reynolds, was staying at defendant's one-bedroom apartment located on the 4000 block of South Lake Park Avenue in Chicago. During the evening of November 3, Square and defendant went to the house of Reynolds' long-time girlfriend, Lizabeth Henderson, to buy drugs from Reynolds. After buying drugs from Reynolds, Square returned to defendant's apartment. At some point that night, defendant, Reynolds and Square were all hanging out at defendant's apartment and watching a movie. Eventually, Square became tired and went to sleep in the bedroom on a bed, which is where defendant allowed him to sleep. According to Square, defendant preferred to sleep on a makeshift bed of pillows and blankets in front of the actual bed. That night the bedroom closet was open, and the closet had been open since Square had been staying at defendant's apartment.
¶ 16 The next day,...
To continue reading
Request your trial