People v. Macias

Decision Date26 June 2015
Docket NumberNo. 1–13–2039.,1–13–2039.
Citation36 N.E.3d 373
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Robert MACIAS, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Richard Dvorak, of Law Offices of Richard Dvorak, Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Christine Cook, and Peter Maltese, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice McBRIDE

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant Robert Macias was found guilty of the first degree murder of Victor Casillas, and the attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm of Lionel Medina. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to a total of 75 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.

¶ 2 Defendant appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements because defendant was given defective Miranda rights, and his statement was involuntary as a result of his will being overborn by police detectives; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to harmful inadmissible evidence and introducing such harmful evidence, failing to introduce favorable evidence to explain why defendant confessed, failing to raise missing portions of the videotaped interrogation in his motion to suppress, and failing to submit a jury instruction that the jurors could not consider defendant's decision not to testify at trial; (3) defendant was denied a fair trial when the trial court admitted prejudicial photographs from a MySpace page without proper foundation or authentication; and (4) the trial court committed reversible error by not permitting defendant to introduce evidence from the videotaped interrogation that explained why he confessed and by failing to ensure the jury was properly instructed on the law.

¶ 3 The shootings occurred around 8:30 p.m. on March 19, 2007, near West 30th Street and South Kildare Avenue in Chicago. Defendant was arrested on June 2, 2007, and interrogated for approximately 46 hours at Area 3 at West Belmont Avenue and North Western Avenue. After viewing a video recording of codefendant Oscar Flores' statement that incriminated him, defendant gave a statement admitting that he was driving the van when Flores shot the victims. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress his statements. The written motion is not contained in the record on appeal, but the record does contain the transcripts of the hearing and ruling on the motion. Defendant argued at the hearing that his statements should be suppressed because (1) his Miranda rights were violated; (2) his request for an attorney was not honored; and (3) his statement was not voluntary because his will was overborne by the detectives.

¶ 4 At the suppression hearing, defendant presented the testimony of his mother, Hermilinda Montoya. Montoya testified that on the evening of June 2, 2007, she was informed by her daughter that defendant was missing. She went to the police station at West Ogden Avenue and South Kedzie Avenue, and asked if defendant was at the police station. An officer stated that he was not there. Montoya asked to file a missing person report, but was told by the officer that defendant's father had already filed a report. She asked to file another report, but was told she could not. On June 4, she went to the police station at West Harrison Street and South Kedzie Avenue, and was directed to the Belmont and Western station. At the station, she was told that defendant was in custody and under investigation, but was not permitted to see defendant. Defendant was 17 years old in June 2007.

¶ 5 The DVD recordings from the electronic recording interview device (ERI) in the interview room were admitted into evidence. Defendant rested.

¶ 6 Detective Gregory Swiderek testified for the State. He stated he was assigned to investigate Casillas's homicide. He arrested defendant on June 2, 2007, at approximately 9 p.m. Defendant was brought to Area 3 for questioning. Detective Swiderek testified that he gave defendant his Miranda rights when he placed defendant under arrest, and later at 9:38 p.m., he readvised defendant of his Miranda rights in the interview room. Defendant indicated that he understood his rights. Defendant gave an inculpatory statement at approximately 7:30 p.m. on June 4, 2007, after viewing a portion of codefendant Flores's statement.

¶ 7 After reviewing the testimony and the DVD recordings, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements.

¶ 8 The following evidence was presented at defendant's October 2011 jury trial. Defendant was tried simultaneously with Flores, but with separate juries. Detective Gregory Swiderek initially testified before defendant's jury only. He stated that he was assigned to investigate the homicide of Victor Casillas on March 19, 2007. At approximately 9 p.m. on June 2, 2007, Detective Swiderek placed defendant under arrest, gave defendant his Miranda rights, and transported him to Area 3, where he was placed in an interview room. The ERI was turned on at 9:33 p.m. At 9:37 p.m., Detective Swiderek and his partner, Detective Roberts, entered the room and told defendant he was there for the homicide of Casillas. He also told defendant that he would be placed in multiple lineups. Detective Swiderek then advised defendant of his Miranda rights.

¶ 9 While defendant was in custody, he appeared in multiple lineups in front of witnesses to the shootings. A polygraph examination was administered to defendant on June 3, 2007. Over the course of his time in custody, defendant was interviewed multiple times by the detectives regarding defendant's involvement in the case.

¶ 10 At approximately 6:30 p.m. on June 4, 2007, Detective Swiderek with Detective Roberts had a conversation with defendant. Detective Swiderek asked defendant if he would like to view a portion of codefendant Flores' statement. After technical difficulties, defendant was shown Flores's statement around 7:20 p.m. The interview of defendant resumed after he viewed the statement. A portion of the videotaped statement was played for the jury.

¶ 11 In the video, defendant said a person called Sonic picked him up in a van and they later picked up Flores. Sonic parked the van at West 26th Street and South Drake Avenue, and they left the vehicle. Later, defendant and Flores took the van. Defendant was able to drive without keys because the steering column was “peeled,” which allowed it to be operated without keys. They picked up another man, but eventually dropped him off. Flores asked defendant to drive him home, which defendant did. When Flores returned to the van, he showed defendant that he had a gun inside a white sock. Defendant said Flores encouraged him to drive into the territory of their gang rivals, the Two–Sixes. Defendant did so. In the area near South Karlov Avenue and West 30th Street, he saw someone he described as a “little kid” walking on the sidewalk. Defendant stated that he stepped on the brakes and slowed the van down. Defendant “threw up the bunny,” and the boy responded and “threw down the crown,” which is a sign of disrespect to the Latin Kings, which was defendant and Flores's gang. Flores then said, “What's up b* * *?” and fired three shots. Defendant stepped on the gas and then heard a fourth gunshot.

¶ 12 Defendant initially denied knowledge of a second shooting but later admitted that, after the first shooting, as he drove down 30th Street, they encountered another individual. Defendant said that he ducked down in the driver's seat and could not tell if the gunshots were coming from inside the van or from outside at the van.

¶ 13 Detective Swiderek also testified about the gangs in the area of the shooting, including the Latin Kings and the Two–Sixes. He explained some of the terms used by defendant and demonstrated the different gang signs for the jury. Detective Swiderek stated that when he mentioned the second shooting, he was not trying to feed information to defendant, but to clarify that more than one person had been shot. He did not think defendant was telling the complete truth at that time.

¶ 14 Detective Swiderek also identified two exhibits which were photographs from MySpace.com. The first photograph was given to him by another detective and showed Casillas with writing, “Little Bones Rotsk, ha, ha, ha, one less Avers.” Defendant said he knew the person in the photograph as “Baby Risky,” but not as “Little Bones.” The second photograph was of defendant with his face blacked out. The photograph says, “Almighty Drake Latin King Latin Criminal,” and defendant was “ throwing off gang signs.” Detective Swiderek testified that he showed defendant this photograph during the interview and defendant admitted it was him. Defendant admitted that he used to be a Latin King from 27th and Drake, and he was called “Criminal.”

¶ 15 On cross-examination, Detective Swiderek testified that defendant initially denied his involvement in the March 19, 2007, shootings. He stated that defendant was fed and allowed to use the restroom anytime he needed by knocking on the door. Detective Swiderek admitted that at the time of his statement at 7:30 p.m. on June 4, 2007, defendant had been in custody for 46 hours. Detective Swiderek denied telling defendant that if he gave a statement, then he would be released, as Flores had been. On redirect, Detective Swiderek stated that defendant did not make any incriminating statements until he watched a portion of Flores's statement.

¶ 16 Lionel Medina testified at trial and admitted he was a member of the Two–Six gang. On March 19, 2007, he was near 28th Street and Kildare when he saw a two-tone blue and gray van at a stop sign. The passenger pulled out a gun and fired. Medina was shot, but survived. Medina was not able to make any identifications in two lineups.

¶ 17 Leonardo Gonzalez testified that on March 19, 2007, he was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Guein
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 2017
    ...use of profanity toward him which did not amount to undue mental pressure); People v. Macias , 2015 IL App (1st) 132039, ¶ 63, 394 Ill.Dec. 440, 36 N.E.3d 373 (finding defendant's confession voluntary despite an aggressive, confrontational interrogation that included yelling, profanity, and......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 25, 2019
    ...a claim of ineffective representation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Macias , 2015 IL App (1st) 132039, ¶ 82, 394 Ill.Dec. 440, 36 N.E.3d 373. ¶ 31 This court has ruled that "[f]ailing to object to certain State evidence has a similar effect to stipulating to the evidence."......
  • People v. Bona
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 10, 2018
    ...has forfeited review of his claim with respect to the Illinois Constitution. People v. Macias , 2015 IL App (1st) 132039, ¶ 88, 394 Ill.Dec. 440, 36 N.E.3d 373 (argument forfeited when the defendant failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. July 1, 2018), which requi......
  • People v. Veach
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 11, 2016
    ...could be considered, under the circumstances, to be a sound trial strategy (People v. Macias, 2015 IL App (1st) 132039, ¶ 82, 394 Ill.Dec. 440, 36 N.E.3d 373 ).¶ 114 A logical preliminary question would be whether the statements Johnny Price, Matthew Price, and Renee Strohl made to the poli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT