People v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 18 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 4–12–0695.,4–12–0695.
• Citation: 14 N.E.3d 1
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Demetrice C. PHILLIPS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

14 N.E.3d 1

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Demetrice C. PHILLIPS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 4–12–0695.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

June 18, 2014.

Michael J. Pelletier, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, and Ellen J. Curry and Dan W. Evers, both of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.

Jay Scott, State's Attorney, of Decatur (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and David E. Mannchen, all of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice STEIGMANNdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 On September 7, 2006, defendant, Demetrice C. Phillips, went to a house in Decatur planning to attack a woman who fought with his ex-girlfriend earlier that day.Defendant intended to give the woman a black eye because his ex-girlfriend suffered a black eye when a brick struck her in the face during the earlier altercation.Defendant was accompanied by Shaunessy Grimes, who, anticipating that crowd control might be necessary, brought a rifle.After approaching the house from a back alleyway, defendant and Grimes realized that the crowd outside the house was too large for them to carry out their plan.Before leaving, Grimes fired a single shot from the rifle in the direction of the crowd.The .22–caliber bullet struck Jeremiah Maclin in the back of the head, killing him.After learning of Maclin's death, defendant tossed the rifle into the Sangamon River.

¶ 2 In May 2012, based upon these largely undisputed facts, the trial court, in a bench trial, found defendant guilty of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(2)(West 2006)) and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24–1.1(a)(West 2006)).In July 2012, the court sentenced defendant to 35 years in prison for first degree murder and 10 years in prison for aggravated possession of a weapon by a felon, with both sentences to run concurrently.

¶ 3Defendant appeals, arguing that the State failed to prove him guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt because (1) Grimes's shooting of Maclin was an independent act not done in furtherance of the original plan, (2)defendant had withdrawn from the original plan, and (3)defendant did not share Grimes's intent.We disagree and affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 The following pertinent facts, which defendant does not dispute, were gleaned from evidence presented at trial.

¶ 6 On September 7, 2006, Stephanie Boyd(the mother of defendant's two children) and Breanna Turner(the mother of Grimes's child) got into a brawl with Quinishia Frazier and several other young women because Turner suspected Frazier of being romantically involved with Grimes.During the skirmish, which occurred outside Frazier's house on the corner of Marietta and Vandyke Streets in Decatur, Boyd was struck in the face with a brick, causing her eye to swell shut.

¶ 7 After the fight ended, Boyd and Turner went to defendant's house and told him what happened.Boyd then drove Turner and defendant to Turner's mother's house, where they met up with Grimes.All four agreed to go to Marietta and Vandyke Streets to confront Frazier.On the way, the group stopped by Grimes's house so that Grimes could retrieve his .22–caliber, single-shot rifle.Boyd then drove to the area of Vandyke and Marietta Streets, where the fight with Frazier had occurred earlier in the day.

¶ 8 It was dark outside when the group arrived in the area of Marietta and Vandyke Streets.Traveling east on Marietta Street, Boyd drove past a large crowd at the intersection of Vandyke Street and turned south onto Pine Street.Defendant told Boyd to turn west off Pine Street into an alleyway that ran behind the houses on Marietta Street.Boyd parked the car in the alleyway and defendant and Grimes got out.Grimes carried the rifle.Boyd and Turner stayed in the car.

¶ 9Defendant testified that he got out of the car planning to hurt somebody.Specifically, defendant wanted to find Frazier and “swell her eye up.”Because defendant did not know Frazier, Grimes was to point her out for him.Defendant also told Grimes to make sure that nobody jumped him while he attacked Frazier, and he anticipated that Grimes would use the rifle to accomplish that task.

¶ 10Defendant and Grimes walked west down the alleyway and cut north between a pair of houses.Defendant and Grimes hid behind the houses for several minutes under the cover of darkness and observed a crowd of approximately 15 to 30 people gathered on the southeast corner of Marietta and Vandyke Streets.Upon realizing how large the crowd was, defendant told Grimes that he“was not fitting to get jumped,” which meant that he did not want to attack Frazier because he would probably get attacked by members of the crowd if he did so.

¶ 11Defendant testified that he“was fitting to leave” when a white car pulled into the alleyway and switched off its lights.Defendant and Grimes returned to their hiding spot behind the houses.Grimes told defendant to “wait for a minute.”Grimes then walked to the front of one of the houses, out of defendant's view, and fired a single shot.Defendant and Grimes ran back to the car, at which point Grimes told defendant that he thought “he merked someone,” which defendant interpreted to mean that Grimes had shot someone.Defendant and Grimes got into the car with Boyd and Turner, and the group fled the scene.

¶ 12 A day or two later, when it became apparent that defendant, Grimes, Boyd, and Turner were under investigation, defendant agreed to help Grimes get rid of the rifle.Defendant and Grimes took the rifle to a bridge over the Sangamon River, and defendant threw it into the water.Grimes told defendant to “stick to the script,” which defendant interpreted to mean that he should not say anything to anyone about the shooting.Upon being interviewed by detectives, defendant initially denied any involvement in the shooting of Maclin.However, defendant later confessed to his involvement in the crime.

¶ 13Defendant was tried twice on these charges.At defendant's first trial, in June 2008, a jury convicted defendant of (1) first degree murder, (2) unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, and (3) aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24–1.2(a)(2)(West 2006)).In February 2010, this court reversed defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred by allowing the State to read Grimes's testimony from his own trial to the jury after Grimes refused to testify at defendant's trial.People v. Phillips,Nos. 4–08–0556, 4–09–0260 cons.(Feb. 1, 2010)(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 ).

¶ 14 In May 2012, on remand, the case proceeded to a bench trial at which Grimes testified and defendant's testimony from his June 2008 trial was admitted into evidence.The trial court found defendant guilty of first degree murder and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon.In July 2012, the court sentenced defendant as stated.

¶ 15 This appeal followed.

¶ 16 II.ANALYSIS

¶ 17Defendant argues that the State failed to prove him guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt because (1) Grimes's shooting of Maclin was an independent act not done in furtherance of the original plan, (2)defendant had withdrawn from the original plan, and (3)defendant did not share Grimes's intent.

¶ 18 A. Standard of Review

¶ 19 When reviewing a defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.People v. Beauchamp,241 Ill.2d 1, 8, 348 Ill.Dec. 366, 944 N.E.2d 319, 322(2011).“This means that we‘must allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution.’ ”Id. at 8, 348 Ill.Dec. 366, 944 N.E.2d at 323(quotingPeople v. Cunningham,212 Ill.2d 274, 280, 288 Ill.Dec. 616, 818 N.E.2d 304, 308(2004) ).“We will not reverse a conviction unless the evidence is so improbable, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive that it creates a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt.”People v. Collins,214 Ill.2d 206, 217, 291 Ill.Dec. 686, 824 N.E.2d 262, 267–68(2005).

¶ 20 B. Legal Accountability and the Common–Design Rule

¶ 21Section 5–2(c) of the Criminal Code of 1961(720 ILCS 5/5–2(c)(West 2006)) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

“A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when:

* * *

(c) Either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid, such other person in the planning or commission of the offense.”

¶ 22 In the recent case of People v. Fernandez,2014 IL 115527, ¶ 13, 379 Ill.Dec. 68, 6 N.E.3d 145, the supreme court reaffirmed “that the underlying intent of [section 5–2(c) of the Code] is to incorporate the principle of the common-design rule.”The court explained that “[u]nder the common-design rule, if ‘two or more persons engage in a common criminal design or agreement, any acts in the furtherance of that common design committed by one party are considered to be the acts of all parties to the design or agreement and all are equally responsible for the consequences of the further acts.’ ”Id.(quotingIn re W.C.,167 Ill.2d 307, 337, 212 Ill.Dec. 563, 657 N.E.2d 908, 923–24(1995) ).“ ‘Evidence that a defendant voluntarily attached himself to a group bent on illegal acts with knowledge of its design supports an inference that he shared the common purpose and will sustain his conviction for an offense committed by another.’ ”Id.(quotingW.C.,167 Ill.2d at 338, 212 Ill.Dec. 563, 657 N.E.2d at 924 ).

¶ 23 In Fernandez,the defendant agreed to drive his friend, Gonzalez, to a parking lot so that Gonzalez could burglarize some cars.Id.¶ 8, 379 Ill.Dec. 68, 6 N.E.3d 145.While the...