People v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 22 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. 118667.,118667.
• Citation: 49 N.E.3d 393
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Jeremy R. THOMPSON, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

49 N.E.3d 393

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant
v.
Jeremy R. THOMPSON, Appellee.

No. 118667.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed Jan. 22, 2016.
Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing March 28, 2016.

49 N.E.3d 396

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Justin Hood, State's Attorney, of McLeansboro (Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and John R. Schleppenbach, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, and Patrick Delfino, Stephen E. Norris and Sharon D. Shanahan, of the Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of Mt. Vernon, of counsel), for the People.

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Ellen J. Curry, Deputy Defender, and Lawrence J. O'Neill, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Mt. Vernon, for appellee.

OPINION

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

¶ 1 Defendant, Jeremy Thompson, was convicted of violating the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act (Act) (720 ILCS 646/25(a)(2), (d)(2) (West 2010)) following a jury trial in which the circuit court of Hamilton County admitted

49 N.E.3d 397

lay opinion identification testimony of four witnesses pursuant to Illinois Rule of Evidence 701 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011). The four witnesses all identified defendant as the person depicted in a surveillance videotape or still photographs that were taken from the crime scene.

¶ 2 The appellate court reversed and remanded the cause, concluding that the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony because none of the witnesses aided the jurors' own identification of who was depicted in the surveillance video and, therefore, the testimony encroached upon the function of the jury. 2014 IL App (5th) 120079, 386 Ill.Dec. 515, 21 N.E.3d 1. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the appellate court's judgment.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Defendant, Jeremy Thompson, was indicted in the circuit court of Hamilton County on two counts relating to events that occurred on July 21, 2011, at the Hamson Ag farm supply company in Dahlgren, Illinois. Count I charged defendant with procurement of anhydrous ammonia with the intent to be used to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of section 25(a)(2) of the Act. 720 ILCS 646/25(a)(2) (West 2010). Count II charged defendant with tampering with anhydrous ammonia equipment in violation of section 25(d)(2) of the Act. 720 ILCS 646/25(d)(2) (West 2010).

¶ 5 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion in limine regarding the admissibility of lay opinion identification testimony. Defendant anticipated the State would offer various witnesses to testify they believed defendant was shown on a surveillance video and still images produced from that video recorded at Hamson Ag on July 21, 2011. Defendant asserted such testimony went to an ultimate fact and would invade the province of the jury.

¶ 6 The circuit court denied defendant's motion. Relying on People v. Starks, 119 Ill.App.3d 21, 74 Ill.Dec. 760, 456 N.E.2d 262 (1983), the court concluded that the witnesses could provide identification testimony, as long as it was based upon their personal knowledge of defendant.

¶ 7 At trial, the State first called Deputy Jason Stewart of the Hamilton County sheriff's department. Stewart described in general how methamphetamine is produced and explained that its production involves the use of anhydrous ammonia, which is often stolen from local farm supplies. In June 2011, Stewart oversaw the installation and maintenance of a surveillance camera at Hamson Ag, which he aimed at three tanks containing anhydrous ammonia. The owner had contacted the sheriff's department because their equipment was often damaged by thieves.

¶ 8 On the morning of July 21, 2011, Stewart was dispatched to Hamson Ag. Upon seeing that three tanks containing anhydrous ammonia had their caps removed, Stewart reviewed and copied recordings made by the surveillance camera. Of the 100 video clips recorded, 2 pertained to the instant case. Stewart testified that the surveillance video showed a white male who had short, dark hair, with a balding or thinning spot on the back of his head, a large forehead and receding hairline, and who was wearing a gray cut-off T-shirt and black baggy pants. Stewart described how, in the video, the man was carrying a five-gallon bucket and a green soda bottle with a clear hose attached. Stewart testified that, based on his training and experience, a soda bottle attached to a hose is commonly used to steal anhydrous ammonia. Stewart then stated that, in the video, the subject walked in front of the tanks, out of view, and then a few seconds later walked back into view. The subject then walked between

49 N.E.3d 398

two of the tanks, sat the bucket down, and then climbed onto the tire of one of the tanks. Thereafter, the subject emerged from between the tanks carrying the bucket and soda bottle with the hose and ran off.

¶ 9 Stewart testified he did not recognize the male, but circulated the video via the departmental computer and gave a copy to Chief Deputy William Sandusky to distribute to other counties and agencies. Stewart also made a color still image from the video and circulated that to various agencies. The color still image was marked as exhibit No. 2 at trial.

¶ 10 The video was then played for the jury.

¶ 11 Chief Deputy William Sandusky of the Hamilton County sheriff's department next testified. Sandusky stated he spoke with Stewart on or around July 11, 2011, and viewed the surveillance video. Sandusky testified he “did not immediately recognize the subject in the video.” Sandusky then emailed a still image to the Jefferson County sheriff's department, as well as the Mt. Vernon and Benton police departments. Sandusky testified he was contacted several days later by Ronnie Almaroad, head of the narcotics division at the Mt. Vernon police department.

¶ 12 Thereafter, Sandusky testified that, on August 17, 2011, he conducted a short interview with defendant. After giving defendant his Miranda rights and defendant agreeing to talk, Sandusky told defendant he wanted to talk about the theft of anhydrous ammonia and the manufacture of methamphetamine in and around Hamilton County. Sandusky advised defendant “he had been caught on surveillance stealing anhydrous ammonia.” Sandusky then testified:

“After I informed [defendant] that he had been caught on surveillance video, he asked that he could—wanted to know if he could see the evidence. I showed him the still image. And he looked at it for several seconds and said, I wish this wasn't me—or I wish I could say this wasn't me, but it is.”

Defendant also stated the photo was “pretty cool” and wanted a copy and asked if it would be placed in the newspaper. According to Sandusky, defendant admitted he had been manufacturing methamphetamine for four to five months and had stolen approximately two gallons of anhydrous ammonia from Hamson Ag on four or five different occasions. Defendant stated he would either use the anhydrous ammonia to manufacture methamphetamine or trade it to get cigarette money. Defendant also told Sandusky he had been purchasing pseudoephedrine over the last four or five months and that one half of it was used to manufacture methamphetamine and the other half he used for his allergies.

¶ 13 According to Sandusky, defendant stated he was not successful that day in acquiring anhydrous ammonia because the hose he had was too small and, in his words, he “kept getting gassed out while trying to get anhydrous ammonia,” i.e., he was overcome by the gas. Sandusky was then asked what appeared to be depicted in the video and still image. Over defendant's objection, Sandusky testified it “depicts Jeremy Thompson walking away from the anhydrous ammonia tanks, carrying * * * [what] appears to be a five-gallon bucket, as well as a soda bottle attached to a plastic hose.”

¶ 14 Sandusky testified that, as he and defendant were leaving the interview room, defendant stated it was not really him in the video since he had been in custody in Johnson County. Sandusky testified that a subsequent inquiry revealed defendant had been released from

49 N.E.3d 399

custody on July 18, three days before this event.

¶ 15 On cross-examination, Sandusky testified that defendant had been arrested in Jefferson County and had been in custody prior to his interview. However, Sandusky was not sure whether the Jefferson County sheriff's department or the Mt. Vernon police department had arrested defendant. He also did not know how long defendant had been in custody prior to the time he interviewed him. However, he did state that defendant had been picked up “on our warrant.”

¶ 16 The State next called Ronald Hamson, owner of Hamson Ag. He stated he has had almost continuous problems with thieves. He contacted the sheriff's department on July 21 because he was advised by an employee that caps were off of three anhydrous ammonia tanks. Hamson was shown exhibit No. 2 and stated the individual depicted was not an employee, had never been an employee, and did not have permission to be on the property.

...