People v. Harris
| Decision Date | 21 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5-16-0454,5-16-0454 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marquad HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Ellen J. Curry, and Lawrence J. O'Neill, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.
E. Zachary Gowin, State's Attorney, of Cairo (Patrick Delfino, Patrick D. Daly, and Michael R. Lennix, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant Marquad Harris was convicted of first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2014)). The jury also found that defendant personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused the death of Christopher Nelson ( 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(d)(iii) (West 2014)). Defendant was 18 years old at the time of the offense. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to 51 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). On appeal, defendant challenges both his conviction and sentence. First, defendant argues that the admission of the dying declaration by the victim, Nelson, violated defendant's sixth amendment right to confront witnesses against him, where Nelson identified the defendant as the shooter. Next, defendant claims that his case should be remanded for a new trial because the testimony of a newly discovered witness provides defendant with an alibi defense. In his final challenge to his conviction, defendant asserts that he was denied a fair and impartial trial because the jury's foreman had a work and familial relationship with Nelson's father. In challenging his sentence, defendant submits that his 51-year sentence is a de facto life sentence and violates the Illinois proportionate penalties clause. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.
¶ 4 On June 16, 2015, the State charged the defendant by information with five counts of first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2014)) related to the shooting death of Nelson. Each count of the criminal information charged a different theory of first degree murder. Count I alleged that defendant intended to kill Nelson. Count II alleged that defendant intended to cause Nelson great bodily harm. Count III alleged that defendant knew shooting Nelson would cause his death. Count IV alleged that defendant knew that shooting Nelson created a strong probability of death and caused the death of Nelson. Finally, count V alleged that defendant knew that shooting Nelson created a strong probability of great bodily harm and caused the death of Nelson. The information also indicated that the State sought a sentencing enhancement, alleging that defendant personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused Nelson's death ( 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(d)(iii) (West 2014) ).
¶ 5 Prior to trial, the State filed a "Motion in Limine to Introduce Dying Declaration." The motion in limine alleged that Nelson made a statement to police, while Nelson knew he was dying, and that the statement implicated defendant as the individual who shot Nelson. Nelson subsequently died as a result of the gunshot wounds. At the hearing on the motion in limine , trial counsel conceded that Nelson's statements to police identifying defendant as the shooter were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The trial court granted the State's motion in limine but indicated that the State would still be required to lay an adequate foundation at trial before Nelson's statements could be admitted into evidence. At two other pretrial hearings, the trial court inquired of defendant as to whether he would be calling any witnesses in his defense. Defendant confirmed that he had talked with his attorney about the decision not to call any witnesses in defendant's case and that defendant agreed with the decision.
¶ 7 The case proceeded to a jury trial on March 8, 2016. During voir dire , the trial court, the State, and defense counsel each asked questions of the entire jury panel. One of the panel members, Hubert Pirtle, ultimately was selected as a juror to serve on defendant's case. Mr. Pirtle is the subject of one of defendant's claims on appeal. During the trial court's questioning, Pirtle revealed that he was retired from the "Bunge" company, after 37 years, and was a pastor. The trial court asked, generally of the panel, whether anyone on the entire panel of veniremen knew the victim, Nelson, or had heard or read anything about the case. Pirtle did not respond to these questions. Finally, the trial court asked the venire panel:
Again, Pirtle did not respond to the trial court's inquiry. The trial court, the State, and the defense all failed to ask whether the members of the panel knew any of Nelson's family members.
¶ 8 During the evidentiary portion of the trial, the following evidence was produced. On June 12, 2015, at 9:25 p.m., members of the Cairo Police Department, including Office Kenneth Blackburn, responded to a shooting call at the residence of Christopher Nelson. Officer Blackburn testified that he entered the kitchen through the rear door, and Nelson was lying on the kitchen floor "squirming around." Nelson had suffered several gunshot wounds. Officer Blackburn testified that as he was caring for Nelson, he said "he was shot by Marquad Harris, A[imee] Harris' son." Officer Blackburn also testified that Nelson stated that he was dying. Body camera footage that had captured the interaction between Officer Blackburn and Nelson was admitted into evidence without objection from defense counsel. According to the body camera footage, the following exchange occurred:
Officer Blackburn testified that he believed Nelson was coherent when Nelson answered Officer Blackburn's questions.
¶ 9 Officer Barbie Braddy testified that she interviewed Nelson's eight-year-old son, C.N. Jr. (C.J.), on the night of June 12, 2015. C.J. was in the house at the time of the shooting and was also the defendant's half-brother. The recorded interview was admitted into evidence. During the interview, C.J. stated that defendant came to Nelson's house "around dark," and defendant and C.J. played basketball. Defendant and Nelson subsequently got into an argument, and the defendant left. According to C.J., he and Nelson then went into the house. Defendant returned, and Nelson went to confront the defendant. C.J. stated that he saw the defendant shoot Nelson with a pistol three times. C.J. stated that Nelson was holding a "shotgun" by his side but never pointed it at the defendant. C.J. called the police and told them his father had been shot.
¶ 10 At trial, C.J. testified that he normally goes to bed around 9 p.m. and was in bed when defendant came to Nelson's house "a little before sunset." C.J. then went outside to play basketball with the defendant. C.J. stated that defendant and Nelson started arguing, and defendant left the house. C.J. claimed that "some other dude" then came to the house a few minutes after the defendant left and shot Nelson. C.J. stated that he could not see the shooter because it was dark outside. C.J. acknowledged that he previously told police that defendant shot Nelson but indicated that his former statement was not true. C.J. testified that he told police the first statement because Nelson told C.J. that defendant shot Nelson.
¶ 11 Officer Shawn Stone testified that he arrived at Nelson's house at 9:25 p.m. and observed shell casings and shattered glass on the porch and rear interior door of the house. Officer Stone spoke to C.J., who said that "his brother shot his dad." C.J. identified his brother as the defendant. Officer Stone collected shell casings and a pellet gun that resembled a rifle, lying near the victim. Officer Stone later received a call at 10:28 p.m. stating that officers had a suspect in custody at the McBride housing complex (McBride). Officer Stone went to that location and transported the defendant to the police department.
¶ 12 Officer Jerren Carlton testified that he received a call to patrol the area and search for the defendant, who was a suspect in a shooting. Officer Carlton went to McBride because he had seen the defendant there earlier in the day and had briefly spoken with him. Upon his arrival to McBride, Officer Carlton saw the defendant walking alone and arrested him. The defendant did not resist arrest and was cooperative. When he arrested the defendant, Officer Carlton found a key and cell phone in defendant's pockets. Officer Carlton placed the items on the hood of his car but forgot to remove them when he left the area. He subsequently returned, with other officers, to search for the key and phone but could not locate the items.
¶ 13 Officer Ray Sutton, a crime scene investigator, identified several pictures of the crime scene and a computer-generated diagram he had created to provide an "orientation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial