People v. Murdock

• Decision Date: 01 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. 112362.,112362.
• Citation: 979 N.E.2d 74
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Germill D. MURDOCK, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

979 N.E.2d 74

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

v.Germill D. MURDOCK, Appellant.

No. 112362.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 1, 2012.

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Peter A. Carusona and Thomas A. Lilien, Deputy Defenders, and Fletcher P. Hamill, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, and Jerry Brady, State's Attorney, Peoria (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Matthew P. Becker, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

Justice GARMANdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1Defendant, Germill D. Murdock, was convicted following a jury trial in the circuit court of Peoria County of first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm.Defendant's conviction was affirmed on appeal.Defendant then filed a postconviction petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements defendant had made to police.Defendant, a juvenile, alleged his statements were the product of police coercion that rendered them involuntary.After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant's petition.The appellate court reversed and remanded to the trial court for a suppression hearing.Following the suppression hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress.The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.No. 3–07–0438(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).Defendant appeals, arguing his statements were involuntary, primarily due to the absence of a concerned adult during his police detention.For the following reasons, we affirm the decisions of the trial court and appellate court.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3Defendant, a 16–year–old juvenile, was indicted on October 9, 2001, in Peoria County on one count of first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(1)(West 2000)), one count of aggravated battery with a firearm ( 720 ILCS 5/12–4.2(a)(1)(West 2000)), and one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm ( 720 ILCS 5/24–1.2(a)(2)(West 2000)) related to the death of Eric Eppinger and wounding of Sam Clark, Jr.

¶ 4Defendant's first two jury trials resulted in mistrials due to deadlocked juries.Defendant's third jury trial began in March 2003.Evidence presented by the State established that on September 4, 2001, defendant drove Shereaf Fleming and Cortez Trapps to Logan Park in Peoria, Illinois.Upon arriving at Logan Park, Trapps and Fleming produced guns, pulled their shirts up to obscure their faces, and left defendant's vehicle.Trapps and Fleming approached the victims, Eric Eppinger and Sam Clark, Jr., who were sitting in parked cars, side by side, speaking to one another.Trapps and Fleming approached and began firing at Clark and Eppinger, wounding Clark and killing Eppinger.Trapps and Fleming returned to defendant's vehicle, and the three left the scene.

¶ 5 At issue was whether, when he drove them to Logan Park, defendant knew about or was involved in Fleming and Trapps' plan to shoot Eppinger.In support of its theory of the case, the State produced oral, written, and videotaped statements made by defendant to Peoria detective Michael Mushinsky on September 19, 2001, after defendant was involved in a traffic stop and was brought to the police station.At the station, Mushinsky advised defendant that he was investigating the murder of Eppinger and advised defendant of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966).Defendant indicated he understood his rights and would talk to Mushinsky.

¶ 6 Mushinsky informed defendant of what he(Mushinsky) knew about the case.Defendant told Mushinsky he did not shoot Eppinger, that he had just been the driver of the van, and that Cortez Trapps was the actual shooter.Mushinsky then asked defendant to explain exactly what happened.Defendant said he was told by Trapps and Fleming that Eppinger was at Logan Park.They wanted defendant to drive them to Logan Park and said they were going to shoot Eppinger.Defendant told them he did not want to drive them, but they told him to drive to Logan Park anyway.Defendant drove Fleming and Trapps to Logan Park, where they spotted Eppinger's vehicle.Fleming told defendant to drive the van into the alley and park.When defendant parked, Fleming and Trapps put white shirts over their faces and pulled out guns.Trapps and Fleming then walked in the direction of Logan Park.After a minute defendant heard gunshots and Trapps and Fleming came running back to the van.Trapps and Fleming got back in the van and told defendant to drive away.Trapps said he had killed Eppinger and Fleming said he fired one shot, but then his gun jammed.Defendant said Trapps and Fleming went after Eppinger because Eppinger and Kimmett Scott had tried to rob Trapps and Fleming on an earlier occasion.

¶ 7 After Mushinsky's interview with defendant, defendant provided a written statement.The written statement basically reiterated what defendant had told Mushinsky orally.Defendant told Trapps and Fleming not to go after Eppinger, but still drove them to Logan Park.After the shooting, defendant drove them to "Erica's" house, where Trapps and Fleming put the guns in a paper bag at the back of the house.

¶ 8Defendant also signed a video release form giving police permission to videotape a third statement.Before recording the video, Mushinsky read defendant a form which again stated his Miranda rights.

¶ 9 On the video (as transcribed by the court reporter), Mushinsky noted it was 9:45 p.m. on September 19, 2001, in Room 164 of the Peoria police department, 600 SW Adams Street in Peoria.Present for the interview were Mushinsky, defendant, and video technician Detective Grow of the Peoria police.Mushinsky again read defendant his Miranda rights as they related to a videotaped statement, and defendant indicated he understood and waived his rights.Defendant stated that he was answering Mushinsky's questions voluntarily and of his own free will.Defendant agreed that he had not been struck, beaten, abused, or threatened by anyone to obtain the statement.He had not been promised immunity from prosecution or leniency by any police officer.He had been allowed to go to the bathroom, eat, and drink if he so needed.

¶ 10Defendant stated that on Tuesday, September 4, 2001, Trapps and Fleming told him to "come on" and "not to worry about" where they were going.As defendant drove the van, Fleming said he knew where Eppinger could be found.They went to Logan Park and drove by Eppinger, who was sitting in his Cadillac.Defendant was directed by Fleming to park in the alley.Once defendant parked, Fleming and Trapps pulled their white T-shirts up over their faces and pulled out guns.The two jumped out of the van and ran toward Logan Park.Defendant heard a few shots and a minute later Trapps and Fleming ran back to the van.They told defendant to drive and defendant drove back to Erica's house.In the van, Trapps said he thought he killed Eppinger.Trapps and Fleming put the guns and white T-shirts they had worn for the shooting in a bag and took it with them to the back of Erica's house.After a while Trapps and Fleming left while defendant stayed behind at the house.Trapps and Fleming returned to Erica's after an hour and a half and picked up defendant and the van.

¶ 11 According to defendant's statement, prior to their arrival at Logan Park, neither Trapps nor Fleming said anything to him about shooting Clark.Defendant first saw the guns when he pulled into the alley.Trapp and Fleming removed the guns from a bag they had hidden under the seat in the van.Defendant suspected Trapps and Fleming had brought the guns into the van without his knowledge by hiding them under their shirts.Upon seeing Eppinger in his vehicle at Logan Park, Fleming said "we fixing to get him," referring to Eppinger.Defendant believed Fleming and Trapps wanted to shoot Eppinger because Eppinger had tried to rob them at a Holiday Inn prior to the shooting.After the video concluded, it was entered into evidence.

¶ 12 On cross-examination, Mushinsky insisted that the date of defendant's oral confession, in which he admitted that he knew Trapps and Fleming planned to kill Eppinger as he drove them to Logan Park, was September 19, 2001, even though the report of the oral confession was marked "9–21."Mushinsky admitted that during the taped confession he asked no direct questions related to what defendant knew about Trapp and Fleming's plans to shoot Eppinger as he drove them to Logan Park.On redirect examination, Mushinsky explained that secretaries type the reports, which could account for the date discrepancy.

¶ 13 Peoria police Detective Craig Willis was the final State witness.Willis was present at the interview of defendant on September 19, 2001.According to Willis, defendant said that while he was in the van with Trapps and Fleming on the way to Logan Park, they told defendantthey were going to shoot Eppinger.Defendant said he tried to talk them out of the shooting.The State then rested.

¶ 14Defendant did not take the stand.He was convicted of first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 24 years for the murder and 8 years for the aggravated battery.

¶ 15Defendant filed a direct appeal raising a single issue: whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppressdefendant's statements.The appellate court, in an unpublished Rule 23order, affirmed defendant's conviction, finding that his claim of ineffective assistance would be better raised in a postconviction proceeding, where defendant could develop a factual record.

People v. Murdock,No. 3–03–0494, 353 Ill.App.3d 1109, 317 Ill.Dec. 495, 881 N.E.2d 981(2004)(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).Defendant filed his pro se...