People v. Segoviano
Decision Date | 17 February 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 86183.,86183. |
Citation | 244 Ill.Dec. 388,725 N.E.2d 1275,189 Ill.2d 228 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Antonio SEGOVIANO, Appellee. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Alan J. Spellberg, Assistant State's Attorney, Jim Ryan, Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Div., Nancy Grauer Kisicki, Assistant State's Attorney, Chicago, for the People.
Cook County Public Defender, Chicago, for Antonio Segoviano.
Following a trial in the circuit court of Cook County, a jury convicted defendant, Antonio Segoviano, of one count of first degree murder on an accountability theory (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West 1992)), and two counts of attempted armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/8-4, 18-2 (West 1992)). After vacating one of the attempted armed robbery convictions based on insufficiency of the evidence, the circuit court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 45 years' imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and 15 years' imprisonment for the remaining conviction for attempted armed robbery. The appellate court reversed defendant's convictions and remanded the matter for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to declare a mistrial when it was discovered during trial that the testimony of one of the State's occurrence witnesses was perjurious. 297 Ill.App.3d 860, 232 Ill.Dec. 50, 697 N.E.2d 792. We granted the State's petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill.2d R. 315(a)) and now reverse the appellate court and reinstate defendant's convictions.
On November 9, 1993, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Onesimo Beltran and Martin Alvarez, the homicide victim, drove their truck into an alley near a currency exchange where the victim intended to purchase a City of Chicago vehicle sticker. Beltran waited in the truck with the door open, removing the old sticker from the windshield, while the victim went into the exchange.
Before the victim returned, a person later identified as defendant approached Beltran and asked him for money. Beltran closed the door, and defendant walked away, towards the mouth of the alley. Shortly thereafter, Beltran heard gunshots from behind the truck, and saw people scatter away from the victim. Beltran was uncertain whether defendant was among the people he saw running away from the victim, although he testified that defendant had walked in that direction after asking him for money. The victim died as the result of a single gunshot wound to the back.
Steven Schoenberg, the manager of the currency exchange, testified that while the victim was in the exchange defendant entered and began scribbling on the wall near one of the windows. Defendant followed the victim out of the exchange. Schoenberg testified that what was written on the wall of the exchange where defendant had been standing was "Little Cap or Little Capone." Chicago Police Officer Thomas Taglioli testified that he had seen graffiti around the neighborhood with defendant's name on it and that the graffiti in the currency exchange was written the way that defendant wrote his name.
Mario Rodriguez testified that shortly before the crime he, defendant, Arnel Robinson, and "J.J." were at a bank of telephones located near the currency exchange. Rodriguez did not know "J.J."s real name, but he knew defendant and knew that his nickname was "Little Cap," short for "Little Capone." While "J.J." was using the telephone, Rodriguez heard defendant ask Robinson if he wanted to "get some money." Robinson agreed, lifted his shirt, and adjusted a gun in his waistband. Defendant said he would "find someone" and walked over to the currency exchange while Robinson went to the alley nearby. In Rodriguez's written statement, which was introduced into evidence, he stated that defendant had said that he would find "someone to rob."
Rodriguez testified that a few minutes later defendant followed the victim out of the exchange and into the alley, out of Rodriguez's view. Rodriguez next heard Robinson shouting "give me your money." Rodriguez walked over to the alley, where he saw Robinson pointing a gun at the victim and saw defendant next to the truck. At this point Rodriguez panicked and walked back towards the telephones. As he was walking away he heard two shots, and he left the area. He did not see where the defendant or Robinson went.
The State's next witness represented that his name was Jerome Lewis, and that he went by the nickname "J.J." The witness testified that he was with defendant, Rodriguez, and Robinson at the time of the shooting. He stated that defendant asked Robinson to help him "stick up the Mexican guy," and Robinson agreed. Defendant thereafter followed the victim into the currency exchange, ducked back out for a moment, holding his hand over his head, then reentered the currency exchange. When the victim left the exchange defendant followed him into the alley where Robinson was waiting. A short while later "J.J." heard two gunshots in the alley, then saw defendant exit the alley.
On cross-examination "J.J." initially testified that his name was Stacy Lewis, and that his older brother was named Jerome, but that they were both known as "J.J." He later stated that his brother's name was Stacy and his own name was Jerome.
The State proceeded to introduce into evidence statements defendant made to police after his arrest. Defendant gave an oral statement to Chicago Police Detective Steven Glynn and signed a written statement in the presence of Assistant State's Attorney Margaret Wood. In each statement, defendant admitted that he had suggested to Robinson that they "make some money" and that they planned to have defendant follow a man out of the currency exchange and have Robinson rob him in the alley. Defendant admitted scratching his nickname on the wall of the currency exchange while waiting for the victim, then following the victim into the alley. In the alley, Robinson grabbed the victim while defendant approached the truck parked in the alley. Defendant demanded money from Beltran, but was told that he had no money. As he walked back to where Robinson was confronting the victim, defendant heard two shots and then ran from the area along with Robinson.
The next several events occurred outside the presence of the jury. Defendant contended that the State's witness who had testified as Jerome Lewis was in fact Stacy Cueto, Lewis' brother. To support this allegation, defendant called as a witness the real Jerome Lewis, who testified that Cueto sometimes used Lewis' name. After hearing Lewis' testimony, the trial court recessed for the day and directed the State to ascertain who was in fact Jerome Lewis by the next day, when the case would be recalled.
When court reconvened, the prosecutor informed the trial court that the person who had previously testified at trial was Cueto. According to the prosecutor, Cueto had admitted his identity when the prosecutor confronted him. Cueto informed the prosecutor that he had testified instead of Lewis because he thought Lewis might "run into some problems" if he testified, whereas Cueto believed he would be safe because he was incarcerated in Minnesota. The prosecutor confirmed that Cueto was not the person at the scene by asking Rodriguez to view him; Rodriguez stated that Cueto was not the "J.J." who was present at the time of the crime. However, the prosecutor maintained that the State had no knowledge of the fact that Cueto was not "J.J." until the defense raised that possibility.
Based on these events the State moved for a mistrial. Defendant opposed the State's motion, arguing that the proper course was not to grant a mistrial, but rather to explain to the jury what had occurred and direct the jury to disregard the evidence. He contended that "it would be a jeopardy issue" if the court declared a mistrial. The court declined to declare a mistrial, stating that "[a]t this time the trial in my opinion has not been reduced to a farce and a sham."
The jury was recalled, and the State admitted that the person who had testified was not Jerome Lewis but rather was his brother. Accordingly, the State requested leave of court to withdraw the earlier testimony and asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard it. The court struck the testimony and directed the jury "to disregard completely all the testimony that this person from Minnesota penitentiary said and completely disregard that."
The State then called the real Jerome Lewis to testify. Lewis stated that he was with defendant, Robinson and Rodriguez at the scene of the shooting several minutes before the shooting occurred. However, Lewis testified that defendant was standing next to him at the pay telephones when they heard the two shots. He stated that he and defendant had parted ways with Robinson and Rodriguez three to five minutes before.
The State proceeded to introduce as evidence a written statement Lewis had given to the police shortly after the crime. Therein, Lewis stated that he, Robinson, Rodriguez and defendant were at the pay telephones when he "heard [defendant] talk about robbing a guy who had just gone in the currency exchange." Robinson agreed to commit the robbery with defendant. Defendant then went into the exchange and came back out holding up five fingers "to indicate $500." He then reentered the exchange and shortly thereafter followed the other man into the alley, towards Robinson. A short while later, Lewis heard two gunshots coming from the alley and saw Robinson and defendant leaving the alley, after which Lewis left the area.
After the State rested, the defense presented the testimony of James Stilwell. Stilwell testified that he had been drinking with Robinson and Lewis at the home of a Raphael Martinez earlier in the day of the shooting. He testified that he was in the alley at the time of the shooting and saw Robinson and Rodriguez in the alley, but not defendant. Afterwards, Robinson and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miranda v. Leibach
...principle, often recognized in Illinois cases, that waiver binds the parties but not the courts. E.g., People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill.2d 228, 244 Ill.Dec. 388, 725 N.E.2d 1275, 1282 (2000); People v. Farmer, 165 Ill.2d 194, 209 Ill.Dec. 33, 650 N.E.2d 1006, 1009 (1995); see also People v. Ter......
-
State v. Kirkpatrick
...willing to take over the case, only that he and his family wanted to try to hire private counsel. See People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill.2d 228, 245, 244 Ill.Dec. 388, 725 N.E.2d 1275 (2000) ("[I]t is well established that a trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion in denying a......
-
People v. Wagener
...(in the course of litigation, "[a] defendant is bound by the acts or omissions of his counsel"); cf. People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill.2d 228, 240, 244 Ill.Dec. 388, 725 N.E.2d 1275 (2000) ("[t]he only trial-related decisions over which a defendant ultimately must have control are: whether to pl......
-
People v. Brisco
...People v. Montgomery, 373 Ill.App.3d 1104, 1110, 313 Ill.Dec. 420, 872 N.E.2d 403 (2007) (quoting People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill.2d 228, 245, 244 Ill.Dec. 388, 725 N.E.2d 1275 (2000)). The trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion if chosen counsel is not specifically iden......
-
Table of Cases
..., 278 Ill App 3d 468, 663 NE2d 97 (1996), §5:30 People v. Seel , 68 Ill App 3d 996, 386 NE2d 370 (1979), §8:70 People v. Segoviano , 189 Ill 2d 228, 725 NE2d 1275 (2000), §1:390 People v. Seider , 98 Ill App 3d 175, 423 NE2d 1217 (1981), §9:110 People v. Seuffer , 144 Ill 2d 482, 582 NE2d 7......
-
Procedures for Objections & Motions
...denied a motion for mis-trial because any error was cured by the court’s instruction to disregard that testimony. People v. Segoviano , 189 Ill 2d 228, 725 NE2d 1275 (2000). A criminal defendant who objects to the state’s motion for mistrial may not on appeal claim that the court erred by d......
-
A Arrests of Persons
...for information was publicized did not undermine finding of probable cause for warrantless arrest of defendant). People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill. 2d 228, 725 N.E.2d 1275 (2000) (an arrest made during a warrantless nonconsensual entry of a home does not vitiate a defendant's subsequent custody ......
-
Table of Cases
...533 (2d Dist. 1988) ...................................................................................... 297 People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill. 2d 228, 725 N.E.2d 1275 (2000)...........................................................................................................110 People v.......