People v. Murray
Decision Date | 18 October 2019 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 123289 |
Citation | 155 N.E.3d 412,2019 IL 123289,440 Ill.Dec. 642 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Deontae X. MURRAY, Appellant. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant Deontae X. Murray was convicted of first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2012)) and unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member (id. § 24-1.8(a)(1)). The circuit court of Boone County sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 50 years and 10 years respectively. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he committed the firearm offense. The appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction. 2017 IL App (2d) 150599, 419 Ill.Dec. 674, 94 N.E.3d 212. We allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Nov. 1, 2017). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court.
¶ 3 The evidence presented at trial established the following relevant facts. On April 21, 2013, defendant went to a gas station in Belvidere, Illinois, to purchase beer. Defendant was accompanied by Marco Hernandez. As defendant and Hernandez were exiting the gas station store, Max Cox and Richard Herman were entering. Cox had admitted belonging to the Sureño 13 street gang.
¶ 4 Defendant and Hernandez waited outside until Cox and Herman eventually exited the gas station store and walked back to their car, which was parked by a gas pump. Defendant and Hernandez approached Cox and Herman. Defendant asked Cox "what's up" and whether he was "gang banging." Cox replied "no," and defendant lifted up his shirt to reveal a handgun and accused Cox of lying. According to Cox, Hernandez, who had been standing in front of defendant, removed the handgun from defendant's waist band, stepped away, and then held it behind his own back. Hernandez and Herman began to argue, and Cox told Herman to "[s]hut the f* * * up, he has a gun." Hernandez pulled out the gun, ran up to Herman, and shot him in the chest. Herman was taken to a nearby hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
¶ 5 A grand jury indicted defendant and Hernandez in connection with Herman's murder. Defendant was charged with first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2012)), aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (id. § 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), (d)), and unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member (id. § 24-1.8(a)(1)).
¶ 6 At defendant's trial, the State called police detective David Dammon as a witness. Dammon testified about his experience with the Belvidere Police Department beginning in 1996, his position in the street gang unit, and his specialized training and courses taken in street gangs and gang activity, which included training dealing with active gangs in Chicago, the Chicago suburbs, and areas close to Belvidere and Rockford. Dammon also testified that he had been personally involved in over 400 gang crime investigations and that, while acting as a gang officer and detective, he had contact with gang members in Belvidere well over a thousand times and personally interviewed people taken into custody for various gang offenses well over a thousand times.
¶ 7 In addition, Dammon generally described how street gangs operate, their hierarchy, and their use of guns for the protection of drugs, cash, and themselves from rival gangs. He testified that the Latin Kings and the Sureño 13s are the major groups of gangs in the Belvidere area and that there is a rivalry between them. He also testified that the phrase "gang banging " indicates when gang members are doing gang work, are intimidating people, and are committing crimes for the benefit of a street gang. He further testified that he had contact with defendant in the context of prior gang investigations.
¶ 8 Over an objection made by defendant, Dammon was permitted to testify as an expert on gang activity. The following testimony was elicited on the State's direct examination of Dammon:
¶ 9 Dammon stated that, as a member of the street gang unit, he gathers intelligence information from and for street gang databases. He also testified to specific types of sources that he and other experts in their field rely upon in identifying someone as a gang member, including law enforcement databases.
¶ 10 During Dammon's testimony, the State played for the jury two videos recovered from defendant's cell phone recorded two hours prior to the shooting. The videos show defendant and Anthony Perez outside an apartment complex in Belvidere, standing in front of graffiti, making hand signals. In one video, Perez is seen urinating on the side of the building, walking over to the graffiti, and saying aloud "thirteen K." Dammon explained that the "13" stands for the Sureño 13 gang and the K was added to signify a Sureño 13 killer. Dammon testified that the graffiti is "something that somebody that didn't get along with the 13's would put up."
¶ 11 Defendant also testified. He stated that he had been a member of the Latin Kings from the age of 13 to 21 but, at the time of trial, he was no longer a member.
¶ 12 The jury convicted defendant of all three offenses, and the circuit court merged the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon conviction (id. § 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), (d)) into the unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member conviction (id. § 24-1.8(a)(1)) and imposed a sentence on that offense. Defendant appealed.
¶ 13 On appeal, defendant raised several issues. Relevant here, defendant asserted that the State failed to prove that the Latin Kings are a "streetgang" as defined by the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act (Act). 740 ILCS 147/10 (West 2012) ; see 720 ILCS 5/24-1.8(a)(1) (West 2012) ( ); 740 ILCS 147/10 (West 2012) ( ).
¶ 14 Defendant contended that, as in People v. Lozano , 2017 IL App (1st) 142723, 412 Ill.Dec. 511, 75 N.E.3d 491, he could not be guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member because the State did not establish, by way of Dammon's testimony, that the Latin Kings committed certain crimes within the relevant time period. Thus, because the State did not show that the Latin Kings had engaged in a "course or pattern of criminal activity," during the requisite time period, the State failed to prove that the Latin Kings are a "street gang."
¶ 15 The appellate court rejected defendant's argument, concluding:
2017 IL App (2d) 150599, ¶ 83, 419 Ill.Dec. 674, 94 N.E.3d 212.
¶ 17 Before this court, defendant argues that the State failed to prove that the Latin Kings are a "street gang" as defined by the Act. See 740 ILCS 147/10 (West 2012). Specifically, defendant contends that the State's proof was insufficient because its gang expert did not testify to a relevant time period or, indeed, to any specific historical crimes committed by the Latin Kings, as required by the Act.
¶ 18 The State maintains it is not required to present evidence of specific crimes committed by the Latin Kings. The State asserts that, because an expert may provide an opinion on the ultimate issue in a case, Dammon's testimony was sufficient to establish that the Latin Kings are a "street gang," as defined by the Act. The State alternatively contends that, if proof of specific crimes were required, it presented evidence of a "course or pattern of criminal activity" through defendant's own crimes.
¶ 19 Where a criminal conviction is challenged based on insufficient evidence, a reviewing court, considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, must determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; People v. Brown , 2013 IL 114196, ¶ 48, 377 Ill.Dec. 1, 1 N.E.3d 888 ; People v. Cooper , 194 Ill. 2d 419, 430-31, 252 Ill.Dec. 458, 743 N.E.2d 32 (2000). This standard of review "gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 ; accord People v. Howery , 178 Ill. 2d 1, 38, 227 Ill.Dec. 354, 687 N.E.2d 836 (1997). Therefore, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. McNeal
...and the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant but remains the responsibility of the State throughout the trial." People v. Murray , 2019 IL 123289, ¶ 28, 440 Ill.Dec. 642, 155 N.E.3d 412. "The State has the burden of proving every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable do......
-
People v. Casler
...of which the defendant is charged." Patterson v. New York , 432 U.S. 197, 210, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977) ; accord People v. Murray , 2019 IL 123289, ¶ 28, 440 Ill.Dec. 642, 155 N.E.3d 412 ; People v. Lucas , 231 Ill. 2d 169, 178, 325 Ill.Dec. 239, 897 N.E.2d 778 (2008). "Such bur......
-
People v. Petrie
...opinion into evidence. Id. ¶ 31. ¶ 69 An expert may testify to an opinion without first identifying the basis for the opinion. People v. Murray , 2019 IL 123289, ¶ 31, 440 Ill.Dec. 642, 155 N.E.3d 412 ; Ill. R. Evid. 705 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011). The burden then shifts to the opposing party to e......
-
Mancini Law Grp., P.C. v. Schaumburg Police Dep't
...suggests that the parties believe their consideration is unnecessary for a proper resolution of this appeal, and I agree." People v. Murray , 2019 IL 123289, ¶ 60, 440 Ill.Dec. 642, 155 N.E.3d 412 (Kilbride, J., specially concurring, joined by Karmeier, C.J.).¶ 68 I do concur, however, with......