People v. Smith
| Docket Number | 1-18-1070 |
| Decision Date | 24 August 2023 |
| Citation | 227 N.E.3d 45 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 12 CR 16555, Honorable Michele Pitman, Judge, Presiding.
Steven A. Greenberg, of Greenberg Trial Lawyers, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Douglas P. Harvath, Hareena Meghani-Wakely, and Tasha-Marie Kelly, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Following a jury trial, Matthew Smith was convicted of first degree murder for the 2012 shooting death of Kevin Guice outside of a nightclub in Harvey, Illinois, and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. In his appeal, he argues that (1) his right to a public trial was violated when his mother was excluded from the courtroom, (2) evidence of lineup identifications should have been suppressed since lineups were unduly suggestive, (3) the State elicited improper testimony on gunshot residue testing, (4) closing statements were prejudicial, and (5) a photograph provided to the jurors during deliberation deprived him of a fair trial. We reverse and remand for a new trial.1
¶ 3 Prior to jury selection, the trial court ruled on pending motions in limine. Both the State and defense moved for witnesses to be barred from the courtroom while they were not testifying. Defense counsel indicated that Smith’s mother, Trae2 Smith, was present and requested that she be permitted to remain in the courtroom throughout the proceedings. Counsel acknowledged that Trae Smith was included on the State’s witness list, but explained:
¶ 4 The State opposed the defense’s request. The court excused Smith’s mother from the courtroom while the matter was argued. The State informed the court that Smith’s mother was a possible witness but stated it would be unlikely that the State would call her to testify. The assistant state’s attorney (ASA) explained that Smith’s mother was present at a police station while he was questioned and, since Smith was a juvenile at the time, his mother was permitted to accompany him during questioning. The ASA further explained that an electronic recording (ERI) of Smith’s interview depicts an interaction between Smith and his mother before he decided whether to speak with police officers. The ASA continued:
This was the only circumstance in which the State anticipated possibly calling Trae Smith to testify.
¶ 5 Defense counsel countered that Smith’s mother should be permitted to remain in the courtroom since the State was unlikely to call her and Smith’s entire interview, including the interaction with his mother, was video recorded. Counsel further indicated that Smith was 16 years old at the time of the offense, his mother was very interested in his trial, and she had attended most of his prior court appearances.
¶ 6 The court ruled that since Smith’s mother was present for his questioning, she was a possible witness and, for that reason, would be excluded from the courtroom. The court instructed the State, however, to inform the court once it decided that it would not call Smith’s mother so she could return to the courtroom.
¶ 7 The record indicates that Smith’s mother was excluded from the courtroom during jury selection, opening statements, and the State’s case-in-chief. She was permitted in the courtroom only after Smith informed the court that he would not testify.
¶ 8 At trial, the State presented evidence establishing that Guice was killed by a gunshot to the left side of his head. Several witnesses testified that they had attended a party at the Press Box, a bar in Harvey, on the night of August 10, 2012. From the DJ booth, Guice asked those present to recognize a moment of silence to honor someone who had recently died. Music stopped playing and the Press Box became quiet. Moments later, someone shouted, "f*** [them], play the music!" A large fight then broke out. A security guard deployed pepper spray, prompting many patrons to exit. Three witnesses testified that they observed Smith—who they described as having a Mohawk hairstyle and wearing a red and white shirt—produce a silver revolver and fire shots at Guice in the parking lot. One witness testified that Smith was the person who shouted the obscenity that interrupted the moment of silence. These same four witnesses identified Smith in a lineup the next day and again in court at trial.
¶ 9 Two Harvey police officers testified that they responded in their respective squad cars to a dispatch about the fight at the Press Box. Upon arrival, both observed bystanders point toward a silver Buick, which quickly sped away from the parking lot. Both officers pursued the Buick until it jumped a curb and stopped near a gas station. Smith ran from the front passenger seat and was quickly apprehended. Smith was wearing a white undershirt when arrested. A silver .357 Magnum revolver and a red and white shirt were recovered from the floor of the silver Buick. At trial, a police officer identified the shirt as the one recovered from the silver Buick, and an eyewitness to the shooting identified it as the same shirt that they observed Smith wearing.
¶ 10 The jury found Smith guilty of first degree murder and made special findings that Smith was armed with a firearm and personally discharged a firearm.
¶ 11 In a motion for new trial, Smith claimed, among other issues, that his mother’s exclusion violated his right to a public trial. In responding to this claim, the State indicated that Smith invoked his right to counsel when he was interviewed at the police station. Defense counsel asserted:
¶ 12 The court denied Smith’s motion for new trial. On this issue, the court stated:
¶ 13 The court sentenced Smith to a term of 30 years’ imprisonment but declined to apply a discretionary firearm enhancement based on the jury’s special findings. Smith filed a timely notice of appeal.
¶ 16 We first address Smith’s claim that his right to a public trial was violated when his mother was excluded from the courtroom.
[1] ¶ 17 The State argues that Smith forfeited this issue by failing to object on the express basis of his public trial right. Instead, the State contends, Smith only objected on the basis that it was unlikely that Smith’s mother would be called to testify. We are unpersuaded that Smith forfeited this claim. When initially objecting, defense counsel did not use the words "public trial." The issue was necessarily implied, however, and the substance of counsel’s arguments pertained to whether an overriding interest justified Trae Smith’s exclusion—the standard applicable to warrant a courtroom closure over a defendant’s right to a public trial. See People v. Radford, 2020 IL 123915, ¶ 27, 450 Ill.Dec. 78, 181 N.E.3d 78. Further, the court’s treatment of the issue evinces that it understood Smith’s right to a public trial was implicated. The court found, however, that Trae Smith’s potential as a witness was reason to exclude her but limited her exclusion to such time as she remained a potential witness. When the issue was raised in a motion for new trial, Smith’s right to a public trial was explicitly asserted.
[2–5] ¶ 18 We recognize that a defendant can forfeit review of their right to a public trial by failing to object. "Th[e] need to lodge a contemporaneous objection to a courtroom closure *** prevents a defendant from potentially remaining silent about a possible error and waiting to raise the issue, seeking automatic reversal only if the case does not conclude in his favor." Id. ¶ 37. Additionally, "if there is no objection at trial, there is no opportunity...
To continue reading
Request your trial