People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 04 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 3–12–0239.,3–12–0239.
• Citation: 22 N.E.3d 526
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel JACKSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

22 N.E.3d 526

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee
v.
Daniel JACKSON, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 3–12–0239.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Dec. 4, 2014.

22 N.E.3d 527

Thomas A. Karalis (argued), of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

Jerry Brady, State's Attorney, of Peoria (Justin A. Nicolosi (argued), of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 A jury found defendant Daniel Jackson guilty of two counts of first-degree murder. The trial court imposed a 65–

22 N.E.3d 528

year

term of imprisonment on one count of murder but did not impose a sentence on the second guilty verdict. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his pretrial motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence and improperly prevented defense counsel from emphasizing the involuntary nature of defendant's confession during closing argument. Alternatively, defendant submits only one murder conviction can stand based on one-act, one-crime principles.

¶ 2 We conclude the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence. In addition, based on plain error, we hold the trial court violated defendant's due process right to present a complete defense by curtailing defense counsel's closing argument. We reverse both of defendant's murder convictions and, since defendant did not request this court to review the sufficiency of the State's evidence, we remand for further proceedings.

¶ 3 FACTS

¶ 4 The State charged defendant with four counts of first-degree murder. Counts III and IV, at issue in this appeal, charged two counts of first-degree murder pursuant to section 9–1(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of 1961, for the August 29, 2009, shooting death of Clifford Harvey. 720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(2) (West 2010). Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence alleging police lacked probable cause to support defendant's warrantless arrest on March 2, 2010. Defense counsel also filed a separate motion to suppress statements regarding defendant's March 2, 2010, confession, alleging, in part, defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights and the interrogators exerted undue psychological, physical, and mental coercion on defendant to confess.

¶ 5 I. Suppression Hearing

¶ 6 The court conducted a two-day hearing on defendant's pending motions to quash his arrest and suppress evidence and to suppress statements on December 9 and 30, 2010.

¶ 7 A. Suppression Hearing Testimony of Detective Curry

¶ 8 The first witness, Peoria police detective Shawn Curry, testified he investigated the August 29, 2009, shooting death of Clifford Harvey that occurred in the 900 block of Matthew Street and spoke with an eyewitness, Easton Eibeck, on August 30, 2009. On that date, Eibeck stated he could not identify the gunman but indicated he might be able to identify the gunman in a photographic lineup. Eibeck also admitted he needed treatment for his heroin addiction. Detective Curry explained Eibeck was staying at his father's residence “out in the county by Mapleton” the first time he spoke to Detective Curry on August 30, 2009.

¶ 9 Detective Curry testified he interviewed Eibeck “several times,” but Eibeck did not identify defendant as the shooter until the final interview on February 24, 2010, when Curry spoke to Eibeck while he was in custody at the Peoria County jail on unrelated burglary charges.¹ Curry told the court that, once Eibeck moved to a different part of Peoria sometime after the shooting, Eibeck felt “safe * * * to now begin revealing more information” and, on February 24, 2010, Eibeck positively identified defendant's photograph as that of

22 N.E.3d 529

the person who shot Harvey.² During the same conversation, Eibeck told Detective Curry “Dougie Fresh” had been with defendant at the time of the shooting.

¶ 10 Detective Curry testified Eibeck said he knew defendant by “nickname and face” at the time Harvey was shot. According to Detective Curry, Eibeck “just wanted to flee” and was afraid for his safety if he provided this information sooner. Following Eibeck's positive identification of defendant on February 24, 2010, Detective Curry said he sent out a “49 message,” directing patrol officers to arrest defendant for murder. Detective Curry explained that a “49 message” is a “probable cause for arrest” type message.

¶ 11 During cross-examination, Detective Curry agreed that, on the night of the murder, he interviewed Kevin Eggers and Angela Espedal, who allowed Harvey and Eibeck to stay at their house on Antoinette Street. According to Detective Curry, Eggers and Espedal said Eibeck fled to their house immediately after the shooting and told them Harvey had been shot, but stated he did not know the person who shot Harvey. Eibeck told the couple that a group of black male subjects confronted Eibeck and Harvey before the shooting.

¶ 12 Detective Curry testified the first time he had an opportunity to speak to defendant was at the police station shortly after defendant's warrantless arrest on March 2, 2010. Detective Curry and Detective Keith McDaniel recorded this interview, which began when defendant stated he understood his Miranda rights at approximately 6 p.m. Detective Curry said the interview lasted approximately two hours and resulted in defendant admitting he shot Harvey because Harvey came at defendant with a screwdriver. Detective Curry testified defendant fainted or “tipped over in his chair” after the interview ended, and it “looked maybe stress related.” The court admitted a copy of the DVD of defendant's interview and reviewed it outside the presence of the parties.

¶ 13 B. Suppression Hearing Testimony of Defendant

¶ 14 Next, defendant, who was 20 years old with a ninth-grade education at the time of his arrest for murder, testified. He told the court, on the day of his arrest, he was at his friend's home with his girlfriend Tori consuming “about six beers,” two cups of Paul Mason (a type of whiskey), marijuana, and “popp [ing]” pills “[l]ike Xanax and Ecstasy” just before the officers arrived and took him to the police station. Defendant testified, when he asked the detective if he could call his grandmother during the interview, in his “mind [he] was asking to call [his] grandmother to get a lawyer.” Defendant said he did not fully understand he needed to tell the police officers he would like to call an attorney because he “ain't never been in a situation like that before.” Defendant felt he needed someone present while the police questioned him.

¶ 15 Defendant clarified he had been read his Miranda warnings one other time when he was a juvenile, about 12 years old and in middle school, because he hit a girl in gym class after she hit him first. When he asked for his grandma during his only previous interview as a juvenile, the police stopped the interview and contacted his grandma. Defendant said no charges were filed against him for the school incident. Defendant testified he understood

22 N.E.3d 530

his rights, but he “didn't fully understand like how to go about ‘em.”

¶ 16 Defendant testified, after asking for his grandmother, he also tried to stop the interview, on March 2, 2010, when he “stopped talkin' to them [the detectives] or trying to block ‘em out.” He said he thought that was how to demand his “right to remain silent” and “quit the interrogation.” According to defendant, he began speaking to the officers, after being silent for a period of time, because he “[j]ust got tired of them nagging, constant nagging, nagging, nagging. I'm saying the same thing over and over again, and it just kept continuing.”

¶ 17 C. Suppression Hearing Testimony of Tori Roats

¶ 18 Tori Roats, defendant's girlfriend, testified she was with defendant at her friend's aunt's house on March 2, 2010, when the police arrested him. According to Roats, she and defendant consumed alcohol and marijuana before the police arrived and defendant also took Xanax pills. She said defendant was “tipsy” and “woozy” that day. The judge recessed the hearing shortly after Roats' testimony. The judge stated he wanted to view defendant's 2 1/2–hour DVD statement.

¶ 19 D. Suppression Hearing Testimony of Easton Eibeck

¶ 20 On December 30, 2010, the second day of the pretrial motions hearing, Easton Eibeck testified he had an on-going, eight-year addiction problem with heroin and had previous encounters with the police because of his drug problems. On February 24, 2010, Eibeck said police arrested him at the same Antoinette Street residence (Kevin and Angela's residence) for a theft charge, and took him directly to meet with Detective Curry where the photo identification took place. According to Eibeck, he was having symptoms of withdrawal from drugs when he spoke to Detective Curry, on February 24, 2010.

¶ 21 Eibeck told the court he knew defendant by face and nickname prior to August 30, 2009, and he told Detective Curry he did not...