People v. Simmons

Citation408 Ill.Dec. 568,66 N.E.3d 360
Decision Date22 September 2016
Docket NumberNo. 1–13–1300.,1–13–1300.
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Antoine SIMMONS, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

66 N.E.3d 360
408 Ill.Dec.
568

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Antoine SIMMONS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–13–1300.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Sept. 22, 2016.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 2016.


66 N.E.3d 363

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Therese Bissell, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Michelle Katz, Janet C. Mahoney, and Tasha–Marie Kelly, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

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

408 Ill.Dec. 571

¶ 1 Defendant Antoine Simmons was convicted of first-degree murder based on evidence that he shot and killed Larry Watkins at a stoplight at the corner of Garfield Boulevard and Michigan Avenue in Chicago. Three eyewitnesses, including the two passengers in Watkins's car, identified defendant as the shooter. The State also presented evidence that a bullet found in Watkins's body matched a bullet recovered in the shooting of Ellen Williams. Williams testified that defendant had shot her in the hand about a month before Watkins's death.

¶ 2 Defendant appeals, raising seven issues: (1) that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the eyewitnesses' identifications of him were unreliable; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the identifications because the judge who saw defendant testify was not the same judge who ultimately denied the motion, and the outcome of the motion rested on a credibility determination; (3) that the expert who testified that the bullets from the Watkins and Williams shootings matched failed to lay an adequate foundation for his opinion, rendering his testimony inadmissible; (4) that the evidence of the Williams shooting was inadmissible because the State failed to show that defendant was involved in that shooting, and any probative value attributable to that evidence substantially outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice it carried; (5) that the prosecution made improper comments during closing arguments; (6) that the trial court failed to consider defendant's rehabilitative potential when it sentenced defendant to natural life in prison; and (7) that three of the counts of murder of which he was

408 Ill.Dec. 572
66 N.E.3d 364

convicted should be vacated pursuant to the one-act, one-crime doctrine.

¶ 3 We affirm defendant's conviction and sentence. Defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where the three eyewitnesses identifications of defendant as the shooter bore sufficient indicia of reliability and were corroborated by firearms evidence linking defendant to the crime. Defendant cannot claim that the trial court erred in ruling on his motion to suppress after reviewing a transcript, where that was the course of action his attorney suggested the trial court take. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of the State's firearms identification expert where the deficiencies in his testimony merely affected its weight, not its admissibility. Nor did the court err in admitting evidence of the Williams shooting where Williams, who knew defendant, identified him as the shooter and the evidence of the other shooting was significantly probative of defendant's identity. We also find that the prosecutor's remarks in closing arguments, though improper, did not prejudice defendant's right to a fair trial. Finally, we find that the trial court considered proper factors in sentencing defendant to natural life in prison and decline to reweigh the sentencing factors considered by the court.

¶ 4 We agree with defendant that three of his counts of murder must be vacated because they arose out of the same act. We direct the clerk to issue a corrected mittimus with only one count of first-degree murder.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 A. Motion to Suppress Identifications

¶ 7 Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress lineup identifications of him as the shooter, arguing both that the police improperly showed him to witnesses before conducting the lineups and that the compositions of the lineups were suggestive.

¶ 8 The hearing on the motion was conducted over the course of two dates. Judge Laws presided over the hearing on the first date.

¶ 9 On the first hearing date, defendant testified that the police took him to Area 1 police headquarters on the evening January 11, 2007. At the time, defendant was in a wheelchair because he had "just [been] shot" and could not walk.

¶ 10 Defendant testified that, when he arrived at Area 1, the officers left him in the back of the squad car in the parking lot. Another squad car pulled up next to defendant and shined a spotlight on defendant. Defendant testified that he tried to duck down, but the detective in the squad car made him raise his head into the light.

¶ 11 Defendant testified that he saw two people in the other car with a police officer. He said that he heard one of these people say, "I'm Blackstone. You the one that killed my man." The two men in the car then got out and approached defendant. One of the men said, "I'm Blackstone. I'm gonna kill you." Defendant testified that he believed "Blackstone" was a reference to a gang but defendant did not know either man.

¶ 12 Defendant said that the officers in his squad car retrieved his wheelchair from the trunk and brought him into the police station. The officers took him to the bathroom, where he again saw one of the two men who had confronted him in the parking lot.

¶ 13 Defendant testified that the police put him in a lineup with four other people. The detectives took defendant's wheelchair from him and made him lean against the person next to him in the lineup. Defendant

408 Ill.Dec. 573
66 N.E.3d 365

testified that, during the lineup, he heard one of the detectives say, "Hurry up. We ain't got time for this bullshit. Hurry up. Pick him up. You wasting our time," and "That's him. Antoine Simmons, guy number four, right there. Pick him out." Defendant testified that the detective also told another witness to pick him out of the lineup, saying, "That's the guy right there who killed your friend, Walker."

¶ 14 Defendant acknowledged that, in a picture of the lineup, he was seated. But he said that photograph was taken after the witnesses had picked him out.

¶ 15 Defendant testified that he had been convicted of four prior felonies: aggravated discharge of a firearm, two separate attempted murders, and escape.

¶ 16 After defendant testified, the parties agreed to continue the hearing so that defense counsel could locate another witness. The hearing was continued several times at defense counsel's request.

¶ 17 Eventually, the case was reassigned to Judge Hennelly. Defense counsel explained to Judge Hennelly that defendant had three cases pending and said, "The elected matter is a homicide in which we started a motion with Judge Laws. What I suggest to the Court is if this court could read the transcript from what we've heard already." The court replied, "Sure. I'm glad to do that." The parties agreed to continue the hearing again.

¶ 18 After one more continuance, the hearing resumed before Judge Hennelly. Judge Hennelly indicated that he had read the transcript of defendant's testimony, summarized defendant's testimony, and asked defense counsel if the summary was accurate. Defense counsel said that it was and rested defendant's case.

¶ 19 The State called Detective Brian Lutzow, who testified that he conducted the lineup on January 11, 2007. Lutzow said that defendant was in a wheelchair when they picked him up from Cook County jail.

¶ 20 When Lutzow set up the lineup, he put defendant in a chair and brought him another chair so that he could put his feet up. Lutzow testified that the other participants in the lineup were also seated. Lutzow said that he kept the three witnesses who viewed the lineup separate from one another before and after they viewed it.

¶ 21 Lutzow denied displaying defendant before the witnesses in the parking lot of the police station. He also denied bringing defendant to the bathroom in front of any of the witnesses or instructing any of the witnesses to identify defendant.

¶ 22 The parties stipulated that, in a report prepared by Detective John Foster regarding the lineup, Foster said that the lineup participants were told "to approach the one-way mirror and perform facing movements so that both side[ ] profile[s] and full face position could be viewed."

¶ 23 The court reserved its ruling for a later date, at which time the court denied defendant's motion. The court explained:

"I am faced with the situation where I have to juxtapose and judge the testimony of the defendant, who has been proven to be a convicted felon, against the testimony of a Chicago Police Officer, which I found came in un-rebutted and uncontradicted.

Therefore, * * * having
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • People v. Balark
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 20, 2019
    ...412. Judgments vacated by the supreme court are void and have no effect. People v. Simmons , 2016 IL App (1st) 131300, ¶ 116, 408 Ill.Dec. 568, 66 N.E.3d 360.¶ 74 In Thomas , the appellate court did not enter a published opinion following the supervisory order by the supreme court, but rath......
  • People v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 27, 2017
    ...of fact, which the jury reasonably resolved in favor of the State. See People v. Simmons , 2016 IL App (1st) 131300, ¶ 93, 408 Ill.Dec. 568, 66 N.E.3d 360 (holding that conflict in testimony was the jury's responsibility to resolve).¶ 87 The majority emphasizes Jackson's irrational behavior......
  • People v. Macklin
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 5, 2019
    ...at this level of generality weigh against a finding of reliability. People v. Simmons , 2016 IL App (1st) 131300, ¶ 95, 408 Ill.Dec. 568, 66 N.E.3d 360. The description easily applies to tens of thousands of black men in Chicago on any given day.¶ 70 The majority takes issue with the suffic......
  • People v. Wilson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 22, 2017
    ...(supervisory order). As a result, the judgment in Jones"has no effect." People v. Simmons, 2016 IL App (1st) 131300, ¶ 116, 408 Ill.Dec. 568, 66 N.E.3d 360.¶ 40 Defendant's reliance on Safford is equally unavailing. In Safford, a latent print examiner testified, without explaining "how or w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT