People v. Smith

• Decision Date: 02 April 2009
• Docket Number: No. 104685.,No. 105575.,104685.,105575.
• Citation: 906 N.E.2d 529,233 Ill.2d 1
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Leratio SMITH, Appellee. The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Adam Titus, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

906 N.E.2d 529

233 Ill.2d 1

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Leratio SMITH, Appellee.

The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Adam Titus, Appellee.

No. 104685.

No. 105575.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 2, 2009.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, Chicago (James Fitzgerald, Annette Collins, Veronica Calderon Malavia, Whitney Bond and Alan J. Spellberg, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People in No. 104685.

Patricia Unsinn, Deputy Defender, Christopher W. Buckley, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago, Brianne Lannon, law student, for appellee in No. 104685.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, Chicago (James Fitzgerald, Annette Collins, Alan J. Spellberg, Veronica Calderon Malavia, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People in No. 105575.

Patricia Unsinn, Deputy Defender, Katherine M. Donahoe, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for appellee in No. 105575.

OPINION

Justice BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion:

In the consolidated cases on appeal, we are asked to decide whether a trial court must provide the jury with separate verdict forms when a defendant who is charged with multiple counts of murder based on the various mental states (knowing, intentional, and felony murder) asks for separate verdict forms.

In the cases at bar, defendants were each charged with intentional murder, knowing murder, and felony murder, as well as the felony offenses underlying the felony-murder charges lodged against them. At their trials, both defendants requested separate verdict forms for felony murder and the trial courts denied the requests. In both cases, general verdicts of guilty of first degree murder were returned and defendants also were found guilty of the underlying felony offenses charged. At sentencing, the trial courts sentenced defendants on their murder convictions and, in addition, imposed consecutive terms for the underlying felonies.

Both defendants appealed, arguing that they were entitled to new trials because the trial courts had refused their requests for separate verdict forms for felony murder. The fourth division of the First District of the Appellate Court heard both appeals and affirmed the defendants' convictions. However, the court modified the defendants' sentences, holding that the trial courts had erred by refusing the requests for separate verdict forms. See People v. Smith, 372 Ill.App.3d 762, 310 Ill.Dec. 590, 866 N.E.2d 1192 (eight-year consecutive sentence for attempted armed robbery modified to eight-year concurrent sentence); People v. Titus, No. 1-05-1523, 229 Ill.2d 691, 326 Ill.Dec. 878, 900 N.E.2d 1125 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (18-year consecutive sentence for armed robbery modified to 18-year concurrent sentence).

The State petitioned this court for leave to appeal in both cases. 210 Ill.2d R. 315. We granted the petitions and consolidated the cases for our review.

BACKGROUND

Leratio Smith, No. 104685

On December 4, 1998, Tony Colon was a patron at Pete's Sidelines Bar in Chicago. Just before midnight, Colon stepped outside the front door of the bar to make a call on his cell phone. As Colon stood outside talking on the phone, a man grabbed him from behind and then forced him back into the bar while pointing a gun to his neck. The man with the gun was later identified as defendant Leratio Smith.

What happened after Smith entered the bar was revealed at Smith's trial through the testimony of three persons who had also been at the bar that night, as well as a security videotape. According to these witnesses, after Smith entered the bar holding Colon in a "head lock" and carrying a gun, Smith demanded that everyone in the bar get down on the floor. He then told the bartender to open the cash register and put the money on the bar. As the bartender was complying with Smith's orders, Smith grabbed for Colon's cell phone and a struggle ensued. The cell phone fell to the floor. Colon then confronted Smith, saying that he did not think Smith's gun was real, that it was only a BB gun. Smith responded, saying "I'll show you that the gun is real." Smith then pulled the slide back on the gun and shot Colon in the chest, killing him. After shooting Colon, Smith grabbed the money off the bar, ran outside, and got into a car that was waiting for him.

Pete's Sidelines Bar was equipped with security cameras and a video-recorder, which captured the entire incident on videotape. After witnesses testified that the videotape accurately depicted what had occurred inside the bar on December 4, 1998, the videotape was admitted into evidence and viewed by the jury. The jury, therefore, was able to observe the events that occurred inside the bar that night, which witnesses had already described through their testimony.

Off-duty police officer Scott Hahn also testified at Smith's trial. Hahn explained that he had been approaching Pete's Sidelines Bar around midnight on December 4, 1998, when he heard what sounded like a gunshot. He then saw a man, whom he identified as Smith, run out of the bar and get into a car. Hahn testified that he ran back to his own car and followed Smith's vehicle. During this time he was able to obtain the license plate number from Smith's car. After following Smith's car for about 20 minutes, Hahn lost sight of the vehicle. Hahn then returned to the bar, where he spoke with police officers who were investigating the shooting. Hahn provided the officers with the license plate number from Smith's vehicle.

Other trial evidence established that, on December 5, 1998, Smith was at his girlfriend's apartment when he learned that his license plate number was being broadcast on television and that the police were looking for him. Smith removed the license plates from his car and then contacted the police to report that the license plates on his vehicle had been stolen. Police officers went to Smith's location (which they obtained from Smith when he made the report) and placed him under arrest.

While in custody, Smith participated in lineups and was identified by several witnesses. Detective Benigno informed Smith that he had been identified and, after advising Smith of his rights, obtained a statement from him. Later, Smith repeated the statement to Assistant State's Attorney Nazarian. In this statement, which was memorialized by a court reporter, Smith admitted that, on the previous night, he had driven with a friend to the north side of Chicago with the intention of finding someone to rob. He came across a bar where he saw someone standing outside talking on a cell phone. Smith admitted that, while his friend waited in the car, he forced the man on the cell phone into the bar at gunpoint and then, inside the bar, told the bartender and patrons to put their money on the bar.

Smith further stated that the man he forced back into the bar continued to talk on the cell phone and, for this reason, Smith tried to snatch the phone away from him. The man resisted, however, and the phone fell to the floor. Smith said the man then tried to tackle him, saying that Smith's gun was not real. Smith admitted that he became angry that the man pushed him. He said he pulled the slide back on the gun and pointed it at the bartender, but when the man "charged" at him, Smith turned the gun on the man and shot him in the chest. Smith said he then left the bar and fled in his car.

Smith also told police where he had hidden the gun he used in the shooting. Following Smith's instructions, the police recovered a gun from Smith's girlfriend's apartment. Testing later proved the gun to be the murder weapon.

At trial, Smith testified in his own behalf and denied that he shot Colon. Smith claimed that the friend he was with that night, codefendant Taylor, had been the one to enter the bar, rob it, and shoot the victim. Smith claimed that he was unaware that his friend had a gun or that he intended to rob the bar. He also claimed that the statement he had made after his arrest had been coerced and was not true. To refute Smith's claim that he had no intent to rob the bar, the State presented, in rebuttal, a certified copy of Smith's conviction for armed robbery, which he and codefendant Taylor committed on November 29, 1998, only a mile from where this robbery took place.

At the close of trial, two jury instruction conferences were held. At the first instruction conference, defense counsel asked that separate verdict forms be provided for the two counts of felony murder that had been charged. Initially, the State did not object and the trial judge agreed to give separate forms, stating:

"A defendant is charged with first degree murder based upon armed robbery, first degree murder based upon attempt armed robbery, and first degree murder based upon knowing and intentional, so if you want different verdict forms, you will get all of them, unless the State is nolle-ing some of the charges. We are not going to separate out some of them and have confusion for the jury."

At the second jury instruction conference, defense counsel again asked for separate verdict forms, noting that a conviction for first degree murder based upon the commission of a felony would have implications for sentencing. This time the State objected, stating that using separate forms would set a "bad precedent" and could potentially lead to inconsistent verdicts. After hearing the State's argument, the trial court denied the defendant's request for separate forms.

Using a general verdict form for first degree murder, the jury found Smith guilty of that offense. The jury also found Smith guilty of armed robbery and attempted armed robbery. In a posttrial motion, defense counsel argued that the trial court erred in refusing to give separate verdict forms...