People v. Tates

• Decision Date: 03 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1–14–0619.,1–14–0619.
• Citation: 61 N.E.3d 175,406 Ill.Dec. 571
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Terry TATES, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

61 N.E.3d 175

406 Ill.Dec. 571

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Terry TATES, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–14–0619.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Aug. 3, 2016.

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Chan Woo Yoon, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, John E. Nowak, and Kathryn F. Sodetz, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice MASON

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 On July 26, 2012, Terry Tates¹ was arrested after approximately 10 officers executed a search warrant at 505 West 62nd Street in Chicago, Illinois. Tates was jointly charged with Walter Tates (Walter),² and Robert Green, who were also arrested during the execution of the warrant. At a joint jury trial with Green,³ Tates was convicted of possession with intent to deliver heroin, cocaine and cannabis and simple possession of less than five grams of methamphetamines. He was acquitted of an armed violence charge. The jury acquitted Green of all charges. Tates was sentenced to 12 years in prison on the heroin and cocaine charges, 5 years on the cannabis charge, and 4 years on the methamphetamine charge, all to run concurrently.

¶ 2 On appeal, among other arguments, Tates contends that the State failed to meet its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of Tates' possession of the narcotics located at the premises was insufficient. We agree and, therefore, reverse.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Around 4:45 p.m. on July 26, 2012, Officer Raymond Wilke and approximately 10 other officers approached a single family residence at 505 West 62nd Street to execute a search warrant. The warrant named Walter as the subject and did not reference either Tates or Green. Police announced their presence outside the residence by knocking on the front door and verbally identifying themselves. After receiving no response for several seconds, the officers then forced entry into the residence using a battering ram.

¶ 5 Officers spread both upstairs and into the living room, dining room, and kitchen, moving systematically to secure the building and locate any residents inside. Wilke, as the search lead, moved into the living room and then the dining room, where he saw Tates and Walter near the dining room table that held clumps of suspect narcotics and packaging materials. Wilke testified that (i) Walter was sitting at the dining room table, (ii) both Walter and Tates were sitting at the table, and (iii) all three individuals were in “the dining table area.” The arrest report did not state that Tates was sitting at the dining room table upon entry. According to Wilke, all three individuals immediately ran from the room. There is no evidence that when police entered, Tates was touching or otherwise handling any of the materials on or around the dining room table. Tates and Walter were detained by perimeter officers outside the building, while Green was detained in the kitchen area; all of them were eventually secured in the kitchen while the police searched the residence.

¶ 6 It is disputed whether Green was present in the dining room at the time of the officers' entry. Wilke was unable to identify Green at trial and had difficulty recalling where Green was when police entered. Green's own testimony placed him and Tates outside the residence during the execution of the warrant.

¶ 7 In the residence, as noted, clumps of suspect cannabis were openly visible on the dining room table, along with bagged suspect cannabis, and paraphernalia for weighing and cutting narcotics. Plastic bags containing larger “ounce bags” of suspect cannabis were found inside various boxes, bags, and express mail containers on the floor of the dining room, along with packaging and mailing materials. A loaded Taurus .40 caliber handgun and a .9 millimeter magazine were found inside a closed credenza in the dining room. Although the magazine was not the appropriate ammunition for the loaded handgun found in the credenza, officers did not find another gun using .9 millimeter ammunition.

¶ 8 Other locations in the house also yielded various quantities of suspect drugs, both in plain view and hidden. In the kitchen, officers recovered heroin from the refrigerator, baking soda, and a strainer containing white residue later found to be drug residue from the kitchen sink, and suspect crack cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines from a compartment in the kitchen water cooler. Officer Donnell Crenshaw, the officer responsible for inventorying the recovered evidence, testified that approximately 700 bags of cannabis in various amounts were recovered. Several of the baggies of suspect cannabis were marked with a Nike-style swoosh symbol, which officers later explained connoted specific brands of cannabis. The parties stipulated that the drugs recovered consisted of: 227.3 grams of heroin, 139 grams of cocaine, 2070.3 grams of cannabis, and five-tenths of a gram of methamphetamine.

¶ 9 The officers did not call for an evidence technician, and no fingerprints or DNA evidence were collected. No indicia of residency was found linking Tates to the location. Both Green and Tates gave other addresses as their home address, and no evidence in the record contradicts this information.

¶ 10 In statements made to arresting officers at the Area 2 police station, Walter admitted ownership of all of the narcotics and related paraphernalia. His statements, excluding references to gang activity, were permitted to be used during cross-examination of Wilke. Walter told police:

“I didn't know you guys were coming * * *. This is what happens when you're in the game. You guys do your thing, and we do ours! I don't hate you. I make mine sellin'. Well, you know I got caught. You got me. You [got] your big bust. I got responsibilities too. I sell that s* * * to take care of my kids and my momma.

I put the s* * * in heat sealed bags and use Express Mail bags so it looks like a legit business. I still can't believe it, you got me just coming in. I'm usually in and out and you had perfect timing. I just got that s* * * in [sic ] could not be better, so you got your little bust. I'm in and out so fast that I never get caught in my sister's house.”

When asked during trial, Wilke did not know who Walter was referring to when he used the word “we.” Walter never referenced Tates or Green in his statement.

¶ 11 Green elected to testify. In the early afternoon of July 26, Green met Tates, a childhood friend, by chance in a fast food restaurant. After getting their food, Tates asked for a ride to a location a few blocks away. Green denied that he knew the owner of the residence, stating that Tates did not indicate who owned the residence. Green had never been to 505 West 62nd Street before the day of the arrest.

¶ 12 When Tates and Green arrived, they took their food to the side yard, intending to sit at a picnic table. Before they could sit down, several police officers, with weapons drawn, entered the yard and ordered Green and Tates to lie on the ground. The two were eventually brought inside of the residence and searched. Approximately 10 minutes later, Walter was brought into the kitchen through the front door, where the three of them waited for about 2 hours before being taken out of the house. Green denied knowing Walter before the incident and claimed he had no knowledge of the narcotics found in the residence.

¶ 13 No weapons, drugs, or money were found on Tates' person, and officers noted in the arrest report that he was considered unarmed. Wilke did not see either Green or Tates touch the weapon or ammunition found in the credenza.

¶ 14 After being advised that it could consider Green's testimony as evidence in Tates' case, the jury found Tates guilty of the narcotics offenses, but acquitted him of armed violence. As noted, Green was acquitted of all charges.

¶ 15 ANALYSIS

¶ 16 Tates argues that the State failed to prove that he possessed any of the drugs recovered and thus failed to meet its burden of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Tates suggests that because the question is purely legal and relies on whether settled facts meet a reasonable doubt standard, rather than the credibility of the witnesses, our review should be de novo. See In re Ryan B., 212 Ill.2d 226, 231, 288 Ill.Dec. 137, 817 N.E.2d 495 (2004)

( “[b]ecause respondent's challenge to the sufficiency of evidence against him does not question the credibility of the witnesses, but instead questions whether the uncontested facts were sufficient * * * our review is de novo ”); People v. Smith, 191 Ill.2d 408, 411, 247 Ill.Dec. 458, 732 N.E.2d 513 (2000) (“Because the facts are not in dispute, defendant's guilt is a question of law, which we review de novo. ”). The State advocates a manifest weight of the evidence standard, arguing that it is not the place of the reviewing court to retry the defendant when considering the sufficiency of the evidence. People v. Wittenmyer, 151 Ill.2d 175, 191, 176 Ill.Dec. 37, 601 N.E.2d 735 (1992) ; People v. Boclair, 129 Ill.2d 458, 474, 136 Ill.Dec. 29, 544 N.E.2d 715 (1989). We agree with the State.

¶ 17 Where the evidence “produces conflicting inferences, the trier of fact resolves the conflict.” People v. Pryor, 372 Ill.App.3d 422, 430, 309 Ill.Dec. 916, 865 N.E.2d 279 (2007)

(citing People v. McDonald, 168 Ill.2d 420, 214 Ill.Dec. 125, 660 N.E.2d 832 (1995) ). A question regarding the sufficiency of the evidence based on the factual findings of a jury, presents a question of fact and not law. Pryor, 372 Ill.App.3d at 430, 309 Ill.Dec. 916, 865 N.E.2d 279 ; see People v. Brown, 277 Ill.App.3d 989, 214 Ill.Dec. 679, 661 N.E.2d 533 (1996) (“Knowledge and possession are factual issues, and the trier of fact's findings on these questions will not be disturbed unless the evidence is so unbelievable, improbable, or palpably contrary to...