People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 17 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-14-1098,4-14-1098 |
| Citation | 2017 IL App (4th) 141098 -U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER B. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Morgan County
Honorable Jeffery E. Tobin, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: (1) The State presented sufficient evidence to sustain defendant's convictions of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine.
(2) Defendant forfeited challenges to evidence establishing the chain of custody of the methamphetamine because defendant failed to object at trial and raise it in a posttrial motion.
(3) Defendant forfeited his argument the State improperly shifted the burden of proof, bolstered its witnesses' credibility, and offered its own opinion as to the credibility of the evidence because he failed to object at trial and raise it in a posttrial motion.
(4) Defendant failed to establish plain error, as the evidence was neither closely balanced nor did the purported error affect the fairness of defendant's trial or challenge the integrity of the judicial process.
(5) Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, as any error was not prejudicial.
¶ 2 In February 2014, the State charged defendant, Christopher B. Smith, by information with three counts of unlawful delivery of less than five grams of methamphetamine based on three controlled buys by a confidential informant (720 ILCS 646/55(a)(2)(A) (West 2012)).
¶ 3 In October 2014, a jury found defendant guilty on all three counts. In December 2014, the trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years' imprisonment for each of the three counts, with all sentences to be served concurrently.
¶ 4 Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of delivery of methamphetamine; (2) the State committed plain error by shifting the burden of proof and expressing its own opinions of the credibility of the evidence in its opening and closing arguments; and (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel neither objected to the State's improper remarks during argument nor raised the issue in a posttrial motion. We disagree and affirm.
¶ 6 In February 2014, the State charged defendant by information with three counts of unlawful delivery of less than five grams of methamphetamine (720 ILCS 646/55(a)(2)(A) (West 2012)). All three counts were based upon allegations defendant delivered less than five grams of methamphetamine to a confidential informant on December 27, 2013, January 9, 2014, and January 16, 2014.
¶ 7 The following testimony was presented at defendant's October 2014 trial.
¶ 9 The confidential informant testified about his history of methamphetamine addiction and criminal record, including a 2011 conviction for the possession of amethamphetamine precursor and a 2012 conviction for possession of methamphetamine. He agreed to be a criminal informant for the Jacksonville police department after he was charged with possession of methamphetamine in December 2013. By participating in controlled buys of methamphetamine with defendant and testifying against him, the confidential informant hoped to receive leniency in regard to the 2013 possession charge. He did not receive any compensation for his testimony, but he did receive rides from Beardstown, Illinois, to Jacksonville on the dates of the trial.
¶ 10 The confidential informant testified he assisted the Jacksonville police department with three controlled purchases from defendant. He purchased methamphetamine from defendant on December 27, 2013, January 9, 2014, and January 16, 2014, and returned the methamphetamine he purchased to police officer Zach Weishaar of the Jacksonville police department. Prior to each controlled purchase, Weisharr patted the confidential informant down and felt within his shoes to ensure the confidential informant did not have money or drugs on his person before the buy.
¶ 12 On December 27, 2013, Weishaar drove with Detective Scott Erthal and met the confidential informant at a parking lot. Weishaar searched the confidential informant's person. He had him place his hands on top of his head, spread his feet apart, and then patted him down from head to toe. Weishaar and the confidential informant got into Weishaar's vehicle. He gave the confidential informant $100 in prerecorded cash and a bicycle to ride to defendant's residence in a nearby trailer park. Approximately 10 minutes after leaving Weishaar, the confidential informant rode back to Weishaar's car. Back in the parking lot, Weishaar conducted anothersearch of the confidential informant's person. Weishaar found the prerecorded cash was gone and took the purported methamphetamine from the confidential informant.
¶ 13 Weishaar weighed the packaged substance and found it weighed 1.5 grams. When defense counsel asked Weishaar to explain how the lab-tested weight of the methamphetamine was only 0.8 grams, Weishaar testified he weighed it in its packaging, a plastic sack, but he did not know how much the sack itself weighed. He also stated a small portion of the substance is removed for field testing prior to sending it to the lab.
¶ 14 On January 9, 2014, Weishaar testified he met with the confidential informant again, but this time inside the police department. Patrolman Reilly O'Brien, Erthal, Inspector Sean Haefeli, and Inspector Mansfield were present. Weishaar had the confidential informant put on a shirt with a video camera in one of its buttons. Weishaar then searched the confidential informant's jacket and searched the confidential informant's person in the same manner as he had during the first controlled purchase.
¶ 15 Weishaar and the confidential informant rode in one vehicle, while O'Brien and Mansfield rode in another. The vehicle was a police vehicle, so Weishaar did not search it for contraband. Weishaar drove the confidential informant to a trailer park, where the confidential informant picked up paint he planned to give defendant when they met. They then drove to the Westwinds subdivision, near the arranged meeting place with defendant at 3 Ventura Court.
¶ 16 At the time, the residence was owned by defendant's stepfather, but a moving truck was present and being loaded during the controlled purchase. Officers conducting surveillance parked around the corner from the entrance to Ventura Court, which was a cul-de-sac. The confidential informant met defendant on the front porch of the residence, and they both moved to the garage. Movers were walking in and out of the garage as the confidentialinformant and defendant met. The confidential informant left the house, walked down the street, and met Weishaar.
¶ 17 Weishaar testified he drove the confidential informant back to the police department. The confidential informant gave Weishaar the purported methamphetamine. Weishaar had the confidential informant remove the shirt with the video camera in it and put his original shirt back on. Weishaar searched the confidential informant's person and discovered the prerecorded money was gone, and he did not find any other contraband.
¶ 18 Weishaar weighed the purported methamphetamine in its foil packaging and found it to be around 0.9 grams. When asked why the lab's weight was 0.8 grams less than the 0.9 grams he found, Weishaar stated the lab might weigh it without its packaging. After weighing it, Weishaar bagged the purported methamphetamine for evidence.
¶ 19 On January 16, 2014, Weishaar testified he met with the confidential informant a third time, again meeting inside the police department. As Weishaar did during second controlled purchase, he had the confidential informant remove his shirt and jacket and put on the shirt with the video camera in it. Weishaar conducted a search of the confidential informant's person in the same manner as prior to the two previous controlled buys.
¶ 20 Weishaar drove the confidential informant and Erthal in his personal vehicle to the same position adjacent to the trailer park as he did for the first controlled purchase. Weishaar had not searched his vehicle for contraband. This time, Weishaar dropped the confidential informant off at the end of a row of trailers, which was within walking distance of defendant's trailer. Weishaar lost sight of the confidential informant when he walked around a corner, but O'Brien was parked near the target location and confirmed he had a visual of the confidential informant. When asked to explain a pause in the video recording where the confidentialinformant appears to stop before reaching the trailer, Weishaar stated he did not know for sure, but the confidential informant had provided a reason for the delay. The battery for the video camera also died, cutting off the recording sometime before the controlled purchase was completed.
¶ 21 After approximately 10 minutes, the confidential informant left defendant's trailer and returned to where Weishaar and Erthal were waiting in the vehicle. The confidential informant got in the car and handed Weishaar the purported methamphetamine, which was contained in a plastic bag. They drove back to the police department, where they had the confidential informant take off the video-camera shirt and Weishaar conducted another search of the confidential informant's person. Weishaar weighed the purported methamphetamine and found it to be approximately one gram. Weishaar placed the bag into evidence that day.
¶ 23 Patrolman O'Brien of the Jacksonville police department was involved in the controlled purchases involving defendant.
¶ 24 O'Brien testified he ran...
To continue reading
Request your trial