People v. McGee

Decision Date29 October 2015
Docket NumberNo. 1–13–0367.,1–13–0367.
Citation44 N.E.3d 510
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Anthony McGEE, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Kathleen Weck, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg and Janet C. Mahoney, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice COBBS

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant Anthony McGee was convicted of first degree murder pursuant to section 9–1(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(1)

(West 2008)) and aggravated kidnapping pursuant to section 10–2(a)(3) of the Code (720 ILCS 5/10–2(a)(3) (West 2008)), and sentenced to consecutive terms of 60 years and 25 years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his pretrial motion to dismiss the first degree murder charge; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was committed either wholly or partly within Illinois; (3) the State failed to meet its burden of showing that defendant was lawfully arrested; (4) the trial court erred in issuing a jury instruction on causation in homicide cases, where it was not an issue at trial; (5) the State in this case committed misconduct in closing argument when it erroneously tried to define the reasonable doubt standard for the jury, misstated the law regarding the presumption of innocence, and impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to defendant; (6) the general verdict form for first degree murder prejudiced defendant and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request separate verdict forms supporting the three different forms of first degree murder; and (7) the fines, fees, and costs should be reduced. For the reasons that follow, we reverse defendant's first degree murder conviction and remand for resentencing and modify the mittimus to reflect a $610 assessment balance.

¶ 2 On September 7, 2007, defendant was arrested for the aggravated kidnapping, aggravated battery, aggravated unlawful restraint, and attempted murder of Frentsi Bridges. At the time of his arrest, defendant asserted his rights under the Speedy Trial Act (725 ILCS 5/103–5 (West 2008)

), demanding trial during his first appearance at bond court. In December 2007, defendant and codefendant, Danyale Moody1 were formally charged. Defendant was released on bail in May 2008, after spending more than 240 days in custody. On July 15, 2009, he was rearrested after the State filed new charges of first degree murder. On August 7, 2009, the State brought a new indictment against defendant and codefendant, charging the men with all three forms of first degree murder (felony, intentional, and strong probability) and aggravated kidnapping of Bridges. The State nol-prossed the original indictment, and proceeded to trial on the new indictment. Defendant and codefendant were separately represented, but tried jointly before the same jury.

¶ 3 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first degree murder counts on speedy trial grounds. In his motion, defendant argued that because the State was aware of all the relevant facts alleged in the subsequent indictment at the time of the original indictment, and because all of the offenses were within the jurisdiction of the criminal court of Cook County, the State was required to join the offenses in a single prosecution pursuant to section 3–3

of the Code. 720 ILCS 5/3–3 (West 2008). Defendant further argued that because the State was required to join the charges, but did not, the time within which the trial was to begin on the murder charges was subject to the same statutory speedy trial period as applied to the original charges. As none of the continuances obtained in connection to the original charges could be attributed to defendant with respect to the subsequent murder charges, because they were not before the court when the continuances were obtained, the State violated his right to a speedy trial with respect to the murder charges. The State responded that it was not required to join the murder charges in the original indictment because the jurisdiction over the murder of Bridges lay within the jurisdiction of more than one court. The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the murder charges were not subject to compulsory joinder with the 2007 charges because the state of Indiana could also have charged defendant with Bridges' murder.

¶ 4 Defense counsel also filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence of the lineup identifications of defendant that followed his arrest. At the hearing on the motion, defense counsel argued that the suppression motion should be granted because the State had failed to present some evidence that the police had a legitimate reason to pull the car over in which defendant was riding as a passenger. Defendant testified that, at the time of his first arrest on September 7, 2007, he was a passenger in a car driven by Robert Kelly. At some point the police stopped the car, ordered defendant out of the car, and handcuffed him. Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was put into a lineup the next day. Kelly also testified that he did not know why the police had stopped his car. The police handcuffed Kelly after stopping his car, but never charged him with anything. He did not know why the police arrested defendant.

¶ 5 Detective John Fassl testified for the State that at some point before defendant's arrest, a man named Leonardo Johnson told him that defendant picked him up and drove him to a building located at 116 West 114th Place. Johnson also told Detective Fassl that he watched as defendant and a man he knew as “Little G” beat and tortured Bridges in the basement of that building. Detective Fassl showed Johnson a videotape of the victim being kidnapped on May 14, 2007, and Johnson identified defendant. On July 13, 2007, Detective Fassl also spoke with Lezly Reeves, the owner of the building, and her brother Tyson Jackson. Reeves and Jackson were at the building on the day of the kidnapping to fix a broken window when they observed defendant carrying a bound person to a van. Fassl showed a photo array to Reeves and Jackson and both identified defendant as one of the two offenders. After Johnson, Reeves, and Jackson made the identification, Fassl submitted an investigative alert of probable cause to arrest defendant. Defendant was arrested September 7, 2007, and then placed in several lineups. Following arguments on the motion, the court found that based on the investigative alert, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant. Further, the court determined that the State did not have to call the arresting officer to testify at the suppression hearing. The court denied defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The following facts were adduced at trial.

¶ 6 Mark Cohill, fire investigator for the Indiana fire department, testified that on May 14, 2007, around 12:37 p.m., Bridges' body was discovered in an abandoned garage at 2274 Adams Street in Gary, Indiana after fire fighters extinguished a fire that had been set to the garage. He examined the exterior of the abandoned brick garage. Cohill noted that fire could not have been started by electricity or gas because there were no utilities hooked up to the building. He examined the interior of the structure and observed a body under a chair. Cohill did not know how long the body had been in the structure prior to the fire. The concrete floor under the body had spalling which was caused by extreme heat and acceleration from an accelerant such as an ignitable liquid like gasoline. Cohill also observed heavy charring on the ceiling and noted that the flames near the area of the chair and body had been very hot. The water used to extinguish the fire was discolored with a rainbow pattern which demonstrated that an ignitable liquid was used. Cohill concluded that the fire was set intentionally.

¶ 7 Dr. Young Kim, an Indiana medical examiner and expert in the field of forensic pathology, performed an autopsy on Bridges in May 2007. An external examination revealed five lacerations on the right side of the back of the head, one laceration on the left side of the back of the head, and a depressed fracture

at the back of the skull. Dr. Kim retracted Bridges' scalp and observed a subdural hemorrhage, a subarachnoid hemorrhage, and a subgaleal hemorrhage. He also observed hemorrhaging in the jaw area and the right chest, a laceration of the lip, and three broken teeth. He opined that based on the extensive burns to the face and body, Bridges was face down and not moving when the fire began. Upon internal examination, Dr. Kim found soot in Bridges' mouth and scant soot in his distal bronchi. He opined that when the body was dropped face down in the garage in Indiana, the pressure from falling could have caused the soot to be deposited in the mouth and the lungs. His coroner's verdict report indicated that the cause of death was “extensive craniocerebral injuries associated with facial and thoracic injuries related to blunt force trauma” and “extensive burns and charred body.”

¶ 8 At trial, Dr. Kim testified on direct examination that he could not be certain whether Bridges was dead or alive when the fire started. He noted that the absence of carbon monoxide in Bridges' body indicated that he was not alive when the fire started; however, he also noted that Bridges' lungs contained fluid which could have been caused by smoke inhalation, indicating that he was alive when the fire started. However, he stated that the cause of death was “extensive head injuries

, also facial and chest injuries due to blunt forced [sic ] trauma.” On cross-examination, codefendant's attorney asked...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • People v. Bass
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 25 Julio 2019
    ...known to the nonarresting officers suffice to establish probable cause. See People v. McGee , 2015 IL App (1st) 130367, ¶ 49, 398 Ill.Dec. 481, 44 N.E.3d 510. That is the rule and has been at least since the United States Supreme Court's decision in Whiteley v. Warden , 401 U.S. 560, 568, 9......
  • People v. Gonzalez
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 7 Mayo 2019
    ...1098. We review de novo whether charges are subject to compulsory joinder. People v. McGee , 2015 IL App (1st) 130367, ¶ 28, 398 Ill.Dec. 481, 44 N.E.3d 510. ¶ 58 We conclude that the 2015 charges relating to E.S. were not based on the same acts as the 2013 charges and, therefore, the 2015 ......
  • People v. Camacho
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 Agosto 2016
    ...may * * * modify the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken."); see People v. McGee, 2015 IL App (1st) 130367, ¶ 82, 398 Ill.Dec. 481, 44 N.E.3d 510 (ordering clerk of the circuit court to correct fines and fees order). As a matter of statutory interpretation, we review the propri......
  • People v. Thornton
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 31 Marzo 2020
    ...sense, which analyzes the totality of the circumstances at the time of arrest. People v. McGee , 2015 IL App (1st) 130367, ¶ 47, 398 Ill.Dec. 481, 44 N.E.3d 510.¶ 43 Here, the following facts formed the basis for the investigative alert. S.F. relayed to her son M.F. that defendant had been ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Misconduct
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...sustained defense counsel’s objection that the argument assumed facts not in evidence, and struck the comment. ILLINOIS People v. McGee , 44 N.E.3d 510, 529 (Ill. App. (1st) 2015). Typically, a timely objection and an instruction to the jury to disregard the improper evidence are sufficient......

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