People v. Sangster

• Citation: 380 Ill.Dec. 574,2014 IL App (1st) 113457,8 N.E.3d 1116
• Decision Date: 28 April 2014
• Docket Number: No. 1–11–3457.,1–11–3457.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Antoine SANGSTER, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2014 IL App (1st) 113457

8 N.E.3d 1116

380 Ill.Dec. 574

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Antoine SANGSTER, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–11–3457.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.

March 31, 2014.

Rehearing Denied April 28, 2014.

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, Ginger Leigh Odom, State Appellate Defender's Office, Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Joan F. Frazier, Joseph Alexander, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Presiding Justice HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 A jury convicted defendant Antoine Sangster of first degree murder for the shooting death of Frank Meeks and attempted first degree murder for the shooting of Christopher Davis. He received consecutive 40– and 21–year prison sentences.

¶ 2 Sangster raises a number of challenges for our consideration. He contends the trial court erred by admitting an audio recording of a telephone call placed from the Cook County jail and attributed to defendant relating to an attempt at witness tampering. Sangster further contends the trial court should not have admitted evidence that Christopher Davis identified defendant as the shooter while speaking with Robbie Horton and allowed the State to introduce numerous inadmissible hearsay statements through Robbie Horton's grand jury testimony and Psallareous Baskin's signed statement. Next, Sangster contends the court improperly introduced a new theory of guilt, which defendant had no opportunity to defend against, by sua sponte amending the jury instruction on the elements of first degree murder to include transferred intent after the parties concluded their closing arguments. Lastly, defendant challenges the propriety of the State's closing argument, claiming the prosecutor improperly commented on excluded evidence and made arguments not based on the evidence.

¶ 3 We affirm. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to admit defendant's recorded jail telephone conversation, finding a proper foundation for the call was laid under the silent witness theory. We find no reversible error in the trial court's admission of Robbie Horton's and Psallareous Baskin's prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence and for impeachment purposes. Additionally, Christopher Davis's identification of defendant as the shooter was properly admitted for impeachment purposes and to show the effect on Horton and his course of conduct. We also find nothing improper in the trial court's decision to amend the jury instruction. Doing so fairly instructed the jury of the law applicable to the theories raised by the State and defense. In addition, the amendment accurately reflected the applicable law and evidence at trial. Bearing in mind that the law grants a prosecutor wide latitude during closing and rebuttal arguments, we find that the prosecutor's complained-of remarks did not deprive Sangster of his right to a fair trial. The prosecutor did not violate the trial court's ruling and did not reference excluded evidence; further, we find the prosecutor's comments regarding the truthfulness of gang members to be based on the evidence.

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Shooting victim Christopher Davis testified at trial under subpoena. Davis said that on June 1, 2006, he and Frank Meeks were standing on Springfield Avenue when shots hit both of them. Meeks died of his wounds. Davis also acknowledged the presence at the scene of LaVonte Davis. (To avoid confusion, Christopher Davis will be referred to as “Davis” and LaVonte Davis as “LaVonte.”) But Davis testified to little else. He denied ever belonging to the Four Corner Hustlers street gang, holding a rank within the gang, or going by the street name “C–Gutta.” Davis also denied telling Robbie Horton that he had enough time to turn around and see defendant Antoine Sangster, also known as Bozo, shooting at him.

¶ 6 Before Robbie Horton testified, Sangster's counsel objected to the State's use of Horton's handwritten statement and grand jury testimony.

¶ 7 In the handwritten statement, which disclaimed any promises or threats to entice its preparation, Horton identified the shooter as Sangster and acknowledged that Sangster and Davis were feuding over drug territory.

¶ 8 In his grand jury testimony, Horton testified that he held the rank of five-star universal chief with the Four Corner Hustlers street gang. Again, he acknowledged a conflict over drug territory and that Sangster was “going after” Davis. Horton told the grand jury that following Davis's release from the hospital after recovering from the shooting, Horton spoke with Davis, and Davis said he “had enough time to turn around and look to see who was coming and which way they was coming from, and he recognized [defendant]” was shooting at him. Horton further testified that he had a conversation with Sangster and asked Sangster about the shooting. Horton testified Sangster responded “yeah, but that wasn't for [Meeks].” Horton asked what Sangster meant. Sangster said he was “trying to get [Davis],” adding Davis was “lucky again.”

¶ 9 Sangster's counsel informed the court that Horton told him that he would contradict both his handwritten statement and grand jury testimony, disputing both that Davis told Horton the shooter was Sangster and that Sangster told Horton he fired the shots. Counsel argued the State should not be allowed to impeach Horton with either his handwritten statement or grand jury testimony because “he would not be doing any affirmative damage to the State's case by merely denying that he had conversations with either [defendant] or Chris Davis.” Counsel further argued Horton had no personal knowledge of the shooting and that the State could not use the evidence to “prove that [defendant] shot Chris Davis or Frank Meeks.”

¶ 10 The State argued for use of Horton's statements to impeach Davis and agreed not to argue that the statements constituted substantive evidence. Concerning Horton's conversation with Sangster, the State argued it came in substantively under section 115–10.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115–10.1 (West 2010)).

¶ 11 The court, after noting that Horton's handwritten statement might be inadmissible under section 115–10.1(c) because of the “potentially problematic hearsay,” admitted the grand jury testimony substantively because, as it was given under oath, the personal knowledge requirement did not apply. The court agreed to limit the use of Horton's handwritten statement with an instruction.

¶ 12 Robbie Horton testified he, Davis, and Meeks were members of the Four Corner Hustlers street gang in 2006, but disavowed attaining any rank within the gang. Horton said his street name was “Wally,” Davis's was “C–Gutta,” Meeks's was “Spook,” and Sangster's was “Bozo.” Horton claimed ignorance of any dispute between Davis and Sangster and further claimed Sangster never admitted to him that he was the shooter.

¶ 13 The court instructed the jury as follows:

“Before we proceed I do want to give you an instruction. Evidence has been presented, ladies and gentlemen, that Christopher Davis told Robbie Horton that Bozo shot him. That testimony is not to be used by you to prove that Bozo shot Christopher Davis, it is admitted only for the purpose of explaining why Robbie Horton spoke to Antoine Sangster concerning the shooting of Christopher Davis. Whether you believe this evidence and the weight you decide to give it, if any, is entirely up to you.”

¶ 14 Sangster's counsel objected to this limiting instruction.

¶ 15 Assistant State's Attorney (ASA) Margaret Ogarek testified she memorialized her interview with Horton in the handwritten statement, which Horton reviewed before signing. Horton told her Davis and Sangster were feuding over drug territory and that Davis identified Sangster as the shooter. ASA Ogarek said Horton gave his statement freely with no promises or threats being made, including promises or threats concerning an unrelated pending criminal matter against Horton.

¶ 16 ASA Mary Innes testified she presented Horton to the grand jury and he appeared to be cooperative. She too said no promises or threats were made to entice his testimony and Horton never indicated that anyone forced or threatened him to give testimony. Before the grand jury, Horton admitted to membership in the Four Corner Hustlers street gang and provided street names. Horton told the grand jury that Davis, also a member of the street gang, argued with Sangster over drug territory. Horton described the conversation with Davis in which Davis identified Sangster as the shooter and the conversation in which Sangster admitted shooting Meeks while trying to shoot Davis.

¶ 17 The State called Psallareous Baskin, a Four Corner Hustlers street gang member working for Sangster. Baskin said Sangster went by the street name “Bozo” and he knew Davis by the name “C–Gutta.” Although he did not know anything about Sangster's control of drug territory, he knew about the shooting, despite not being there.

¶ 18 Baskin testified he was forced and threatened into giving a handwritten statement, which the State introduced. In it, Baskin acknowledged (i) Sangster and Davis were fighting over drug territory; (ii) he was on the block of North Springfield on June 1, 2006; (iii) he had spoken with Sangster that day; (iv) Sangster told him and LaVonte that when they saw Davis, they should contact him; (v) he did not do so on seeing Davis because he did not want to be responsible for anyone's death; and (vi) 15 minutes later, he saw Sangster near a vacant lot shooting at Davis and Meeks.

¶ 19 ASA Barbara Dawkins testified she memorialized an interview with Baskin on April 9, 2008, in a handwritten statement. She testified Baskin gave his statement voluntarily, without promises or threats, and Baskin read the statement before signing it. In his...