People v. Thompson

Citation168 N.E.3d 934,445 Ill.Dec. 859,2020 IL App (1st) 171265
Decision Date21 May 2020
Docket NumberNos. 1-17-1265,1266 cons.,s. 1-17-1265
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deandre THOMPSON and Cedryck Davis, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (1st) 171265
168 N.E.3d 934
445 Ill.Dec.

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Deandre THOMPSON and Cedryck Davis, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 1-17-1265
1266 cons.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, FOURTH DIVISION.

Opinion filed May 21, 2020
Rehearing denied June 2, 2020

James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Adrienne E. Sloan, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellants.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Brian A. Levitsky, and Adam C. Motz, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

PRESIDING JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

445 Ill.Dec. 863

¶ 1 After a joint jury trial, defendants Cedryck Davis and Deandre Thompson were convicted of the attempted murders of Shawn Harrington and his 15-year-old daughter Naja.1 The shooting occurred on January 30, 2014, at 7:45 a.m., as Harrington was driving his daughter to school. The

168 N.E.3d 939
445 Ill.Dec. 864

shooting left Harrington paralyzed from the waist down, while Naja was not injured. Each defendant was sentenced to 59 years with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).

¶ 2 On appeal, both defendants claim (1) that the State's evidence was insufficient to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being the shooters, (2) that the State failed to prove that they had a specific intent to kill Naja, and (3) that the trial court erred in admitting other-crimes evidence on the issue of identity. In addition, Thompson claims (4) that the trial court erred in admitting the pretrial statement of a trial witness who denied making it and (5) that his sentence was excessive in light of the fact that his criminal history was less extensive than his codefendant's criminal history.

¶ 3 For the following reasons, we affirm.


¶ 5 Prior to trial, the trial court considered several motions. Among them was Davis's motion to quash arrest and suppress the victims' lineup identifications of him on the ground that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest him prior to the lineups. The trial court denied that motion, as well as defendants' joint motion for a severance. However, over the objection of both defense attorneys, the trial court granted the State's motion to admit other-crimes evidence that Davis and Thompson had shot at a man named Darren Dear two days before the Harrington shooting. Ballistics evidence established that one of the bullets recovered from the Dear shooting matched bullets recovered from the Harrington shooting. After hearing argument, the trial court ruled that it would "let the other crimes evidence in for the purposes of identity."

¶ 6 At trial, Harrington, age 41, testified that, on January 30, 2014, the day of the shooting, he was a special education teacher and assistant basketball coach. At 7:45 a.m., he was on his way to work and to drop off his oldest daughter, Naja, age 15, at her school. Taking the same route that he took every morning, he came to a stop at a traffic light at an intersection. When he stopped, he noticed a man standing on the corner, pointing in Harrington's direction. After the man pointed, the first gunshot came through the back window. Harrington turned and observed that, in addition to the man he had previously noticed, there was a second man standing a little further off. His daughter was in the front passenger seat, and he pushed her down, in order to cover her with his body. He heard at least 10 shots.

¶ 7 Harrington identified Davis in court as the man who had pointed at him. Harrington testified that he had also identified Davis on April 8, 2014, during a five-person lineup at a police station. A photo of the lineup was admitted into evidence, without objection, and published to the jury. The photo showed that all five men in the lineup were African American, with closely cropped hair and sparse facial hair.

¶ 8 When Harrington first observed Davis, Davis was 20 to 25 feet away. The morning daylight provided good lighting, and there were no obstructions between himself and Davis to block Harrington's line of sight. A video of the shooting, which Harrington previously viewed, was admitted into evidence, without objection, and published to the jury during his testimony. Harrington testified that the video truly and accurately depicted the shooting as he remembered it, and he described the video, without objection, as follows: "It showed me proceeding south * * * and people—two people come up the street, and it showed my car. Once I get to a stop, then gunshots started coming and it just seemed like from everywhere. * * * It

168 N.E.3d 940
445 Ill.Dec. 865

showed two people on the tape actually shooting."2 As a result of the shooting, Harrington is permanently paralyzed.

¶ 9 On cross examination by Thompson's counsel, Harrington testified that, after the shooting, he was transported to a hospital where he spoke to police officers. He did not recall telling them that he had observed and could identify the faces of both shooters, but it is possible he said that. Prior to the shooting, Harrington looked at the first man, who was standing on the corner, to determine why the man was pointing; then the first gunshot went through the back window. Harrington turned, looked over his shoulder and through the back passenger window, and that is when he first observed the second man, who Harrington was not able to identify from the photos the police showed him. The second man, who was later identified by Naja as Thompson, stood to the side of Harrington's vehicle, closer than "half a car's length." Harrington viewed only one lineup, which was the one from which he selected Davis.

¶ 10 On cross examination by Davis's counsel, Harrington testified that, when Davis pointed at Harrington prior to the shooting, Harrington did not observe a gun in Davis's hands. Davis was pointing with his finger. After Harrington pulled his daughter down and tried to shield her with his body, Harrington did not know from which direction the gunfire came. The only shot that he observed was the first shot, which entered from behind the vehicle. He did not recall telling the police at the hospital that he heard between five and seven shots. He did tell the police that that the shooters were two black males, wearing hoodies, with their hoods up, and that Davis's hood was "dark-colored."

¶ 11 On redirect examination, Harrington testified that he was focused on Davis for 5 to 10 seconds and that he focused on Davis because Davis was gesturing toward him. During the incident, Davis wore a black coat or vest, and Davis's sleeves were a different and lighter color than his vest. Harrington did not recall providing police with a clothing description of the second man.

¶ 12 Naja testified that she was presently 18 years old and in college. On January 30, 2014, at 7:45 a.m., she was in high school, and her dad was driving her to school when he was shot. Their vehicle, which her father was driving, was slowing down as it approached a traffic light when, from the front passenger seat, she observed two young black men on the sidewalk. One stood near the intersection; and one stood directly across from her passenger side. The man near the intersection wore a black vest and grey sleeves, which looked like a hoodie under a vest. The man standing directly across from her wore an orange hoodie. Although their hoods were up, Naja had no trouble observing their faces.

¶ 13 Naja testified that the man in the orange hoodie was 15 feet away from her, while the man with the grey sleeves was 20 to 25 feet away. As the vehicle slowed down, she observed each man for a few seconds, and then returned to looking straight ahead. Then she heard bullets hitting the passenger door behind her. During the shooting, she heard a total of 10 to 15 shots. Her father pulled her down and covered her with his body, and she was not hit or injured.

¶ 14 Naja did not observe any guns in the hands of the two men, but she was not

168 N.E.3d 941
445 Ill.Dec. 866

looking at them when the shots were fired. On February 4, 2014, while her father was still in the hospital, she went to a police station to view a five-person lineup. During this lineup, she identified Thompson as the man in the orange hoodie. The lineup photos, which were admitted into evidence, showed that all five men in the lineup were African American, and were wearing jeans and hoodies with their hoods up.

¶ 15 Two months later, on April 8, 2014, Naja returned to the police station with her father to again view a five-person lineup. When she actually viewed the lineup, her father was not present. During this second lineup, she identified Davis as the man with the black vest and grey sleeves who had stood near the intersection. Naja also identified both Davis and Thompson in court.

¶ 16 On cross examination by Thompson's counsel, Naja testified that, prior to the shooting, she observed Thompson for five...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • People v. Van Dyke
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 3 Diciembre 2020
    ...or where no reasonable person would take the position adopted by the trial court. People v. Thompson , 2020 IL App (1st) 171265, ¶ 84, 445 Ill.Dec. 859, 168 N.E.3d 934.¶ 67 In their initial appellate brief, the media appellants describe the documents at issue as "the eight documents filed w......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT