People v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 29 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-16-0705,1-16-0705 |
| Citation | 434 Ill.Dec. 776,137 N.E.3d 848,2019 IL App (1st) 160705 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Courtney LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Joshua M. Bernstein, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Jon Walters, and Sean O’Connell, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Defendant Courtney Lewis was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) and sentenced to one year in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). On appeal, defendant claims: that the State failed to perfect its impeachment of defense witnesses; that the trial court abused its discretion by denying defense counsel's request to have the gun tested for fingerprints; and that the fines and fees order must be corrected. The State agrees that certain fines and fees must be corrected. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's conviction and order the correction of certain fines and fees.
¶ 3 The trial court declared a mistrial after defendant's first trial due to a hung jury. Prior to his second trial, defendant moved the court to permit fingerprint testing of the gun in question. The trial court denied the motion, observing that the handling of the gun during the first trial would have obliterated any fingerprints on it and "the time to test this weapon for prints has come and gone."
¶ 4 At the second trial, the State called three police officers to testify, and the defense called defendant and a friend of defendant's. The trial was basically a credibility dispute between two competing versions of the events: the officers versus defendant and his friend.
¶ 5 The evidence at trial established that Chicago police officers Joseph Montesdeoca, Pablo Delgado, Orlando Long and Brock1 arrived in the vicinity of 108th Street and South Eggleston Avenue in Chicago at 2 a.m. on August 18, 2012, in response to the report of an armed man in that area.
¶ 6 Officer Joseph Montesdeoca testified that he arrived with his partner Officer Pablo Delgado in an unmarked Chevy Tahoe. The two officers were in plain clothes, but wearing bullet-proof vests with silver badges on the front and the word "Police" on the back. After Montesdeoca stopped their vehicle and exited, defendant looked at him, grabbed the right side of his waistband, and ran south on Eggleston Avenue. Montesdeoca chased him on foot. As they ran, defendant looked back, pulled a gun out from his right side, dropped it on the ground and then ran into a yard, through a gangway and into a rear yard with a six-foot chain link fence. As Montesdeoca chased defendant, Montesdeoca yelled that he was a police officer and told defendant to stop, but defendant did not stop. After defendant jumped the chain link fence, he fell. After Montesdeoca jumped the fence, he found defendant hiding near the basement door of the house. Montesdeoca told him to stop and handcuffed him. After handcuffing defendant, Montesdeoca was joined by Officer Long, who had the gun that defendant had dropped. On cross, Montesdeoca admitted that it would have been difficult to observe the items identifying him as a police officer.
¶ 7 Officer Pablo Delgado testified that he and his partner, Officer Joseph Montesdeoca, were 15 to 20 feet away from defendant when they first observed defendant on Eggleston Avenue and that defendant was the only person on the street at that time. Montesdeoca, who was driving, stopped their vehicle and both officers exited. As Montesdeoca approached, defendant grabbed his waistband on the right side and ran. After defendant ran a short distance he pulled a gun out of his waistband and dropped it on the front yard of a house. While Montesdeoca pursued and arrested defendant, Delgado went to retrieve the gun.
¶ 8 Later, after defendant was arrested and standing by a police vehicle, Delgado read defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights and agreed to speak with the officer. Defendant stated that he was carrying the gun for protection. However, on cross-examination, Delgado admitted that this statement was not memorialized or signed by defendant.
¶ 9 Officer Orlando Long testified that he was with his partner, Officer Brock, in a marked police vehicle when they received a call about a man with a gun. Officers Montesdeoca and Delgado arrived first, exited their vehicle and began chasing someone. Long exited his vehicle and retrieved a gun that was lying in the front yard of a home on Eggleston Avenue. On cross-examination, Long admitted that he did not use gloves when he retrieved the gun, that he did not place it in an envelope or bag at the scene, and that the gun was not examined for fingerprints.
¶ 10 The parties then stipulated that defendant had never been issued a Firearm Owners Identification card, and the State rested.
¶ 11 The defense then called defendant and his friend, Joshua Reed. Reed testified that he was 22 years old at the time of the second trial, which was held on October 22, 2015, over three years from the date of the offense. Reed testified that he had known defendant since childhood. At the time of defendant's arrest, they spent a lot of time together, but they had since had a falling out and were no longer friends at the time of trial. Reed did not observe a gun in defendant's possession and was not aware that defendant ever carried a gun.
¶ 12 Reed attended a party with defendant and Allen Carley at 108th Street and Eggleston Avenue at 9 or 10 p.m. The party, which lasted about two hours, was attended by 15 to 20 people, and strippers performed. After the party ended, there were about 15 people, including Reed, in front of the house, talking and heading to their vehicles. As they were standing in front of the house, a vehicle drove down Eggleston Avenue very fast and without lights on. Everyone scattered and Reed ran because he thought it could be a drive-by shooting. Reed and Carley ran in the same direction but he did not observe where defendant ran and did not observe defendant again that night.
¶ 13 On cross-examination, the State asked Reed a series of questions which defendant discusses on appeal. As a result, we provide the colloquy below:
¶ 14 Defendant testified that he had turned 20 years old the month before the party and that he arrived at the party with Joshua Reed and Allen Carley. When it ended, there were 15 to 20 people standing outside, in small groups. Reed, Carley and defendant stopped to talk to friends in the neighborhood. As they were standing outside, defendant heard yelling and observed a vehicle driving fast down the street, with its headlights off. Fearing a drive-by shooting, defendant ran south down Eggleston Avenue, while Reed and Carley ran in a different direction. Defendant ran through a yard and a gangway, and jumped a gate into a backyard. When he did not hear yelling or gunshots, he went to the gate and observed a police officer in the front yard with a flashlight. As the officer approached the gate, he pointed his gun at defendant and told him to go down on the ground. After defendant complied, the officer jumped the fence and handcuffed defendant's hands behind his back. The officer lifted defendant over the fence with the help of other officers and placed defendant into the back of a police vehicle.
¶ 15 Defendant did not know why he was arrested; he was not read his rights; and he did not speak to the officers. After he arrived at the police station, he was informed why he had been arrested. Defendant testified that he did not own a gun and did not have a gun at the party or after it.
¶ 16 On cross-examination, the State asked defendant a series of questions which defendant discusses on appeal. As a result, we provide the colloquy below:
¶ 17 The State then asked the following questions concerning the strippers:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Standlee v. Bostedt
-
People v. Davis
...into the river to kill himself. As such, the State never perfected its impeachment. The State disagrees and cites People v. Lewis, 2019 IL App (1st) 160705, 137 N.E.3d 848, in support of its argument. We find Lewis instructive.¶ 52 In Lewis, the defendant argued that it was improper for the......