People v. Logan
| Docket Number | 4-21-0492 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Citation | 2022 IL App (4th) 210492,203 N.E.3d 418,461 Ill.Dec. 264 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessica A. LOGAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Gilbert C. Lenz, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Scott Reuter, State's Attorney, of Decatur (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Timothy J. Londrigan, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Following a June 2021 jury trial, defendant, Jessica A. Logan, was convicted of one count of first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2018)). Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress any evidence obtained by the State during a video-recorded reenactment of the incident, claiming she was subject to a custodial interrogation without the benefit of the prescribed warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The trial court subsequently denied the motion.
¶ 2 Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence where "no detective ever admonished [her] as to her Fifth Amendment rights prior to the re-enactment" and (2) she was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
¶ 4 In November 2019, the State charged defendant by information with three counts of first degree murder (counts I-III) ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (2) (West 2018)). Count I alleged defendant, without lawful justification and with the intent to kill or do great bodily harm, knowingly asphyxiated her 19-month-old son, J.C., causing his death.
¶ 6 In July 2020, defendant filed a motion to suppress video-recorded statements she made to police. Defendant argued she was subject to custodial interrogation without first being informed of her Miranda rights during a "reenactment/interview" of the events that transpired on the night of J.C.’s death. Defendant asserted the reenactment "lasted five or six minutes" and "the remaining time was dedicated to asking [her] interrogatory questions unrelated to the reenactment." Thus, defendant argued, her statements should be suppressed. The State responded, conceding that the police did not inform defendant of her Miranda rights, but asserted the "reenactment and conversation that ensued at defendant's residence was not a custodial interrogation, and therefore, there was no requirement for Miranda rights."
¶ 7 In October 2020, the matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. Leandra Tate, an investigator with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), testified she "was assigned to the investigation when it came in" and met with defendant at the Anna Waters Head Start Preschool to "have a conversation about the reenactment." Although Tate could not recall "word for word," she testified she Tate further testified she told defendant they "need[ed] to do the reenactment so [they could] move forward on the investigation." Tate acknowledged defendant Defendant "was worried about having to go back into the apartment, and emotionally she was not looking forward to that at all." She did not According to Tate, Decatur police officer Eric Matthews arranged the time and place of the reenactment.
¶ 9 Hope Taylor, J.C.’s paternal grandmother, testified she was employed as a certified nursing assistant and acted as "a mother figure to [defendant]." Taylor was familiar with defendant's educational upbringing and stated defendant had been enrolled in an "Individualized Education Plan" (IEP) while in high school. Taylor explained that defendant had to have her tests read to her, "[s]he would have unlimited test time, and her tests [were] broken down to where they're more explanatory for her *** where she [could] understand them." Defendant's IEP also included special education classes. Taylor recalled meeting with Tate sometime after J.C.’s death and recalled Tate telling defendant "she would have to do [the reenactment], and that is normal procedure in a child's death." Tate also informed Taylor and defendant the reenactment would be "set up" by Matthews.
¶ 10 Taylor testified the reenactment occurred at defendant's residence on October 17, 2019. Taylor, defendant, and defendant's four-year-old son arrived together. Upon their arrival, Taylor saw "two or three detective cars" and observed Tate, another DCFS caseworker, as well as "Detective Matthews and two other detectives on the porch." Prior to that day, defendant had only returned to pack her belongings "because she didn't want to go back to the house, so she had made arrangements to move out to Bristol Gardens." When Matthews invited everyone inside, Taylor testified he "put his hand out and said, ‘I think it's best to stay out.’ " Taylor "sat on the porch with [defendant's] son for probably the first 15, 20 minutes" before walking to the park. The pair stayed at the park for "about another 15 minutes" and "walked back up to the house and just stood out waiting for them to come out."
¶ 11 Defendant testified she had been enrolled in an IEP since elementary school due to her difficulties with reading and comprehension. At some point after J.C.’s death, defendant spoke with Matthews over the telephone to set up a time for the reenactment. Matthews explained the reenactment "was standard procedure." Although defendant did not decline to participate in the reenactment, she "didn't feel like [she] had a choice" after her conversation with Tate. On the day of the reenactment, defendant testified she was upset because she "didn't want to replay the moment back in [her] head." However, she acknowledged she made no attempt to terminate the encounter early. She further acknowledged giving the detectives consent to search her cell phone and residence. Upon conclusion of the reenactment, defendant was allowed to leave the residence with Taylor and her other son.
¶ 12 Eric Matthews, a juvenile detective with the Decatur Police Department, testified he was the lead detective in the investigation related to J.C.’s death. Matthews testified the pathologist informed him that no cause of death had been identified following J.C.’s autopsy on October 7, 2019, and the pathologist "requested additional information and further investigation into the incident, including wanting a reenactment done of the incident." Matthews then "scheduled a reenactment with [defendant]," which occurred 10 days later due to Matthews having "difficulty locating a toddler-sized mannequin to be used in the reenactment." During his telephone conversation with defendant, Matthews "explained to her about the request from Dr. Denton to have a reenactment" and "asked her if she would be willing to participate in that and she said that she would." Matthews denied telling defendant she was required to participate in the reenactment.
¶ 13 Shortly before the reenactment took place, Matthews testified he "spoke to [defendant] briefly on the *** front porch." He "asked Hope if she would mind staying outside with the child so that [they] wouldn't have any distractions while *** doing the reenactment inside." Defendant then "opened the locked front door *** and escorted [them] to the bedroom where the death took place." Matthews further testified he "asked Detective Appenzeller to come in order to video record the reenactment ***, and Sergeant Carroll came because it was a death investigation and he's overseeing the investigation." Although the officers carried their badges, they were not uniformed and were instead "wearing just dress shirts and dress pants and shoes." Defendant interacted exclusively with Matthews throughout the reenactment while Appenzeller operated the video camera. "Sergeant Carroll was in and out of the room for the majority of the time *** and Leandra Tate was in the room for most of the time, kind of standing back by the doorway." According to Matthews, none of the officers blocked any entryway or restricted defendant's freedom of movement inside the residence. Matthews could not recall "the other DCFS investigator *** being in the room much at all." Matthews acknowledged he did not advise defendant of her Miranda rights at any point before, during, or after the reenactment "[b]ecause she wasn't in custody or under arrest."
¶ 14 On cross-examination, Matthews testified he asked defendant several questions during the reenactment related to who treated J.C. for his breathing problems, who refilled J.C.’s breathing treatment prescription, what defendant was told regarding J.C.’s diagnosis, and when the last time J.C. saw his treating physician. However, Matthews acknowledged asking J.C.’s primary healthcare provider the same questions on October 15, 2019. Matthews claimed he repeated the questions to defendant "[f]or the benefit of the reenactment for Dr. Denton to hear her version of the account," but admitted he "had suspicions" after listening to defendant's 911 call and was attempting to compare answers.
¶ 15 Upon examination by the trial court, Matthews...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
... ... conduct." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) ... Hayes , 2022 IL App (4th) 210409, ¶ 65. "We ... do not have to necessarily agree that it was the best or most ... persuasive trial strategy as long as we can find it to be ... 'reasonable trial strategy.'" People v ... Logan" , 2022 IL App (4th) 210492, ¶ 141, 203 N.E.3d ... 418.\" 'A defendant is entitled to competent, not ... perfect, representation, and mistakes in trial strategy or ... judgment will not, of themselves, render the representation ... ineffective.'\" People v. Bell , 2021 IL App ... (1st) 190366, \xC2" ... ...