People v. Spiller

• Decision Date: 27 May 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1–13–3389.,1–13–3389.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Giovanni SPILLER, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

55 N.E.3d 175
404 Ill.Dec. 79

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee
v.
Giovanni SPILLER, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–13–3389.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

May 27, 2016.
Rehearing Denied June 16, 2016.

55 N.E.3d 178

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and James J. Morrissey, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Tasha–Marie Kelly, and Phyllis Warren, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

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

404 Ill.Dec. 82

¶ 1 The undisputed evidence in this case showed that on November 29, 1996, defendant, Giovanni Spiller, shot and killed Roberto Castillo on West Montrose Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois. Immediately after the shooting, defendant fled the jurisdiction for several weeks. Prior to turning himself in to the police, defendant consulted with a criminal defense attorney, who gave defendant his opinion that defendant had a winning case. The state charged defendant by indictment with two counts of first degree murder. Defendant posted bond ($200,000), with a condition of 24–hour electronic monitoring/home confinement. He cut off the monitoring bracelet and again fled the jurisdiction. He was captured in California 15 years later on March 13, 2012. Following a bench trial, Judge James Obbish found defendant guilty of first degree murder and sentenced him to 35 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).

¶ 2 Defendant alleges on appeal that the State failed to disprove his affirmative defense that he acted in self-defense and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not assert to the judge that he was guilty of the lesser mitigated offense of second degree murder. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment and sentence are affirmed.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On November 29, 1996, an eyewitness to the shooting, Leona Minassian, was sitting in her parked vehicle outside her family's pool hall, Marie's Golden Cue, on West Montrose Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois. The victim, Roberto Castillo, knocked on her car and waved to her on his way into the pool hall. She knew the victim as a regular customer at the pool hall. The pool hall had plate glass windows across the front, which allowed a view from the front of the hall, all the way to the back. After he went inside, the victim spoke to the man working at the counter and some of his friends. Less than a minute later, the victim ran out of the pool hall, with defendant chasing him. Minassian knew defendant since she was a child. Like the victim, he was also a regular patron at the pool hall.

¶ 5 As the victim ran toward her, she heard two gunshots and “it looked like [the

404 Ill.Dec. 83

55 N.E.3d 179

victim] would have tripped, but as he fell, [the victim] turned around and ended up like facing the windows.” Defendant then fired an additional three shots, one shot for each step he took in the direction of the victim. Minassian testified at trial that the shooting occurred directly in front of her parked car, where she was sitting. She estimated that the length of the car hood was the distance between her and the victim, about 4 ½ feet, when he was shot. She observed that defendant used a chrome .45–caliber gun, during the shooting. She was sure of the caliber of the gun because she had just completed a ballistics class. Minassian did not observe any weapons in the victim's hands either before he went into the pool hall or after he came out. Minassian called the police and an ambulance as defendant drove away in a dark green SUV. She provided the operator with the license plate number of defendant's vehicle. A few weeks later, Minassian identified defendant in a police lineup.

¶ 6 Attorney Robert Christie testified that he was playing pool at Marie's Golden Cue at the time of the shooting. Shortly after 6:00 p.m., he heard a gunshot. He looked out the window and observed a man leaning forward with something shiny in his hand, with his arm out at a 45–degree angle pointed towards the ground. Christie then heard three more gunshots in succession. Christie believed that the shiny object in the man's hand was a gun. Every time he observed the man's hand jerk, he heard a simultaneous shot. He observed the shooter turn around and run eastward.

¶ 7 Chicago police investigator Gurtowski recovered three .45–caliber fired cartridge cases: from the sidewalk, one on top of the curb, and one from the street, near the curb. Medical personnel at Illinois Masonic Hospital gave Chicago police officer¹ Valenzano one fired bullet that was recovered from the victim's body.

¶ 8 It was stipulated by the parties that Deputy Cook County Medical Examiner Dr. Larry Sims would testify that he conducted an autopsy on the victim on November 30, 1996. The stipulated testimony was as follows: the victim suffered from five gunshot wounds : (1) a through-and-through gunshot wound which entered the right lower back and exited the left lower back; (2) a gunshot wound to the left posterolateral thigh that partially exited at the top of the victim's left buttocks; (3) a gunshot wound of entrance to the victim's left lower chest; (4) a through-and-through gunshot wound which entered the victim's left upper abdomen and exited through the right lower back; and (5) a graze wound to the victim's left inner forearm. One bullet was recovered from the partial exit wound located at the top of the victim's left buttocks and another bullet associated with the wound to the victim's left lower chest was recovered in the right flank. All tests for ethanol, opiates and cocaine were negative. The coroner listed the cause of death as multiple gunshot wounds and the manner of death as a homicide.

¶ 9 Firearms identification expert John Sanchez examined the two fired bullets recovered during the autopsy and at the hospital, as well as the fired cartridge cases recovered from the scene of the shooting. The parties stipulated that Sanchez would testify that the three recovered bullets, as well as the three fired cartridge cases, were .45–caliber and all three of the cartridge cases were fired from the same gun.

¶ 10 Defendant testified that the victim had previously physically harmed him and

404 Ill.Dec. 84

55 N.E.3d 180

had previously threatened him. He never called the police after these incidents. On the day of the shooting, the victim entered the pool hall and called defendant a slang Filipino word which meant “you are stupid.” Defendant tried to avoid the victim and only left the pool hall when he believed that the victim had left the area. When defendant exited the pool hall, he observed the victim step out of a doorway further down the street. The victim struggled to remove a gun from his waistband. As he was struggling with the gun, the victim told defendant that he was going to kill him. Defendant reached for his gun and shot the victim numerous times.

¶ 11 Defendant claimed that after the victim fell to the ground, the victim's friend, Boxer,² , picked up something and left. Defendant did not know what Boxer picked up. No weapon of any kind was recovered from the victim's person or from the surrounding area. Defendant ran to his SUV and drove off. He dismantled the gun he had used to shoot the victim and threw it away. Defendant admitted that he bought a .45–caliber gun in the street three or four years prior to this incident. He carried this gun for protection while in the bookmaking business, but he never had a license for it.

¶ 12 After defendant consulted with a criminal defense attorney, he turned himself in to the police several weeks after the shooting. Defendant was placed on electronic home monitoring, but he cut off his electronic monitoring bracelet and fled the jurisdiction. Defendant testified that he did this because he believed people were after him and might kill him.

¶ 13 The defense expert, Dr. Nancy Jones, a forensic pathologist, testified that the victim had to be “in at least separate positions” at the time the five gunshot wounds were inflicted because the wounds were located in three distinctly separate areas of the body. The victim sustained two gunshot wounds in the front of his body, consistent with the victim being in a vertical position or slightly leaning forward. Jones testified that the wounds were not consistent with the victim being shot while lying on the ground while the shooter stood over him. She stated that the gunshot wound to the back of his left thigh could only have occurred if the victim's back was to the weapon as it was being fired.

¶ 14 The trial court found defendant guilty of first degree murder and specifically found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not acting in self-defense when he shot the unarmed victim after chasing him from the pool hall. The trial court sentenced defendant to 35 years in the IDOC. This appeal followed.

¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS

¶...