People v. Veach
| Decision Date | 04 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-13-0888,4-13-0888 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLACKIE VEACH, 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 Coles County
Honorable Mitchell K. Shick, Judge Presiding.
Justices Holder White and Appleton concurred in the judgment.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court reversed defendant's convictions, concluding that defendant was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.
¶ 2 Following a July 2013 trial, a jury convicted defendant, Blackie Veach, of two counts each of attempt (first degree murder) (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 9-1(a) (West 2010)) and aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(1), (f)(1) (West 2010)). The trial court later imposed consecutive prison sentences of 16 years on defendant's attempt convictions. (Defendant's aggravated battery convictions were lesser-included offenses on which the court imposed no sentences.)
¶ 3 Defendant appealed, arguing only that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel when his counsel stipulated to the admission, during his trial, of video recordings containing various prior consistent statements and bad character evidence. This court concluded that the trial court record was inadequate to adjudicate defendant's claim on direct appeal. As a result, we affirmed defendant's convictions and suggested that he raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 to 122-7 (West 2016)). People v. Veach, 2016 IL App (4th) 130888, ¶¶ 92-95, 50 N.E.3d 87.
¶ 4 The supreme court granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal, reversed our decision, and remanded with directions for us to address the merits of defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶¶ 53-54.
¶ 5 On remand, we follow the supreme court's directions and now agree with defendant that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Accordingly, we reverse defendant's convictions and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 8 In December 2012, the State charged defendant with the aforementioned offenses. Pertinent to this appeal are the State's attempt (first degree murder) charges, which the State amended in July 2013. Specifically, the State alleged that on December 12, 2012, defendant "performed an act which constituted a substantial step toward the killing of *** individual[s] in that [defendant] cut the throat of" Matthew Price and Renee Strohl.
¶ 10 Because defendant challenges only his trial counsel's effectiveness, we limit the following discussion to those facts that place defendant's claim in its proper context.
¶ 11 After jury selection and outside the jury's presence, the State and defense counsel stipulated to the admission of People's exhibit No. 24, a compact disc (CD) containing a video recording of the December 12, 2012, interview between Johnny Price, who was present during the events at issue, and a police detective. The trial court then addressed defendant directly anddetermined that (1) he had spoken with his counsel about the stipulation and (2) by stipulating, he waived any foundational objections to the recording.
¶ 12 When the trial court asked whether the exhibit was being offered as substantive evidence, the following exchange occurred:
¶ 13 The parties explained that they were also stipulating to the admission of People's exhibit No. 25, which was a video recording of defendant's interview with a police detective.
¶ 14 After reconvening the jury, the State called Johnny to the stand.
¶ 17 On December 12, 2012, Johnny—who was 18 years old and lived in Toledo, Illinois—rode with his grandmother to Charleston, Illinois, to visit his cousin, Matthew Price, at the home Matthew shared with his girlfriend, Renee Strohl. Throughout that day, visitors came and went, but that evening, only Matthew, Renee, Johnny, and defendant remained in the front room of the house. Matthew was smoking "fake marijuana," otherwise known as K2, Renee wasdrinking beer, and Johnny was drinking beer and smoking cannabis. Defendant was "drinking and smoking fake marijuana" while talking with Matthew.
¶ 18 Sometime thereafter, Johnny was seated on a sofa, facing a "loveseat" where Matthew and Renee were seated. Defendant was sitting behind Matthew. Johnny momentarily looked away, but when he looked back, he saw defendant—who was now standing behind the loveseat—cut Matthew's neck. Matthew jumped up, holding his neck, and told defendant to "back the fuck up." As Renee picked up her telephone, defendant "cut" her as well. Matthew then pushed defendant down onto a mattress, which was against the wall. During that time, Johnny made his way to the kitchen and exited through the back door of the house. When Johnny looked back, he saw defendant "chasing after [him]."
¶ 19 Johnny ran to a local restaurant and called his grandmother. He was "shaking and crying," and too "scared" to dial 9-1-1. Johnny told the restaurant employees that his cousin's neck had "been sliced." Sometime later, police arrived and transported Johnny to the police station for an interview.
¶ 20 b. Johnny's Recorded Interview
¶ 21 The State then moved to admit into evidence People's exhibit No. 24, which was the CD containing Johnny's interview with the police. The trial court admitted the exhibit. When the court then asked defense counsel whether he had any objection to playing the exhibit for the jury, counsel responded, "The entire interview?" The prosecutor then said, "I believe under the doctrine of completeness the—everything needs to be seen."
¶ 22 The trial court played the recording for the jury. At some point during the playing of the recording, defense counsel objected. The following exchange occurred:
The rest of the recorded interview was then played for the jury.
¶ 23 During Johnny's recorded interview with the police, he recounted the entire incident (about which he had testified during his direct examination) and described the knife attack six different times. Johnny also stated in that recording that (1) on the evening at issue, defendant claimed to be a member of a street gang; (2) defendant was making gang signs and wanted Johnny to mimic his gestures; (3) defendant compelled Johnny to smoke drugs that night; (4) defendant began having "problems" with Johnny; (5) Matthew warned defendant that if he wanted to confront Johnny, defendant would have to go through Matthew—or "that's what [Johnny was] guessing they said"; (6) after Matthew told defendant he would have to go through him, defendant cut Matthew's throat; and (7) defendant cut Renee and chased Johnny because defendant wanted to kill all the witnesses.
¶ 24 After playing Johnny's recorded interview with police, the trial court instructed the jury that (1) Johnny had been convicted of retail theft and (2) the jury could consider that conviction only as it might affect his believability.¶ 25 c. Cross-Examination
¶ 26 Johnny admitted that during his police interview, he "probably" told the police that he did not know if defendant had been smoking anything in Matthew's house. But he was "confused" at the time, and now, in retrospect, Johnny knew defendant had been smoking. Johnny also explained that during his interview, he was "confused," "scared," "high," and "drunk" when he told the detective that he had jumped over the couch in the front room. Actually, he "didn't jump over nothing." Johnny first tried to escape through the front door but could not get it open, so he headed for the back door.
¶ 29 Prior to Matthew's direct testimony, the trial court informed the jury that (1) Matthew had been convicted of three felonies and (2) the jury could consider his convictions only as they might affect his believability.
¶ 30 Matthew, who was 22 years old, testified that in December 2012, he lived with his then-fiancée, Renee, in a home located in Charleston. Defendant, Matthew's longtime "best friend," whom he had "always called [his] brother," "stay[ed] with [them] quite often."
¶ 31 On December 12, 2012, around 8:30 or 9 p.m., defendant visited Matthew's home, bringing with him two 40-ounce containers of malt liquor as well as "the baseball bat he always carried," which Matthew described as a small Louisville Slugger, a little longer than Matthew's forearm. Defendant "[s]tarted talking and playing music." In addition to drinking alcohol, defendant was smoking K2 with Matthew. Matthew remembered that he had earlier cut some speaker wires with a kitchen knife that remained in the front room of the home....
To continue reading
Request your trial