People v. Veach

• Decision Date: 11 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 4–13–0888.,4–13–0888.
• Citation: 50 N.E.3d 87,401 Ill.Dec. 367
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Blackie VEACH, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

50 N.E.3d 87

401 Ill.Dec. 367

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Blackie VEACH, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 4–13–0888.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

March 11, 2016.

Michael J. Pelletier, Thomas A. Lilien, and Jack Hildebrand, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, Elgin, for appellant.

Brian Bower, State's Attorney, Charleston (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Julia Kaye Wykoff, all of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

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

¶ 1 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.)

¶ 2 Defendant appeals, 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 prior consistent statements and bad character evidence. Because we conclude that we may be required to consider matters outside the record to adjudicate defendant's claim on direct appeal, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. The State's Charges

¶ 5 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 were 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.

¶ 6 B. The Pertinent Evidence Presented at Defendant's Trial

¶ 7 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.

¶ 8 On the third day of defendant's July 2013 trial 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 and determined that (1) he had spoken with his counsel about the stipulation and (2) by stipulating, he waived any foundational objections to the recording. After defendant agreed to the CD's admission, the court confirmed that the content therein was being offered as substantive evidence. After reconvening the jury, the State called Johnny to the stand.

¶ 9 1. Johnny's Testimony

¶ 10 a. Direct Examination

¶ 11 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, at the home Matthew shared with his girlfriend, Renee. 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 was drinking beer, and Johnny was drinking beer and smoking cannabis. Defendant was “drinking and smoking fake marijuana” while talking with Matthew.

¶ 12 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].”

¶ 13 Johnny ran to the 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.

¶ 14 b. Johnny's Recorded Interview

¶ 15 Thereafter, the State moved to admit into evidence exhibit No. 24, which was the CD containing Johnny's interview with the police. After the trial court confirmed that defense counsel had no objection, the court admitted exhibit No. 24 into evidence, and at the State's request, it published the recording for the jury's consideration.

¶ 16 During his interview with the police, Johnny recounted the entire incident (to which he had testified during his direct examination), describing the knife attack six times. Johnny also stated 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.

¶ 17 After playing Johnny's recorded interview with police, the trial court instructed the jury that Johnny had been convicted of retail theft, and the jury could consider that conviction only as it might affect his believability.

¶ 18 c. Cross Examination

¶ 19 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, and so he headed for the back door.

¶ 20 2. Matthew's Testimony

¶ 21 a. Direct Examination

¶ 22 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.

¶ 23 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.”

¶ 24 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. Later that evening, Matthew saw defendant pick up the knife as defendant was going to the back door to answer the knock of some visitors.

¶ 25 Eventually, the visitors left except for defendant and Johnny. Matthew and Renee were sitting on the loveseat, Johnny was sitting on a sofa, and defendant was sitting on a black chair. Sometime thereafter, Matthew and Renee got up from the loveseat and went into the bathroom, where they had sexual intercourse. About 20 minutes later, they left the bathroom. As they did so, defendant, who was standing outside the bathroom door, said, “ ‘What the hell’ ” and “ ‘that's bogus.’ ” Unable to comprehend what defendant was complaining about, Matthew returned to the loveseat with Renee. Johnny remained on the sofa. Defendant sat back down on the black chair and resumed playing with the stereo radio.

¶ 26 After a while, defendant asked Matthew to meet him at the back porch, where no one was located. After doing so, defendant told Matthew that “he had to put a hit out for Renee [for] beating up his aunt [Debbie Davis,] who isn't actually his aunt.” Matthew told defendant that “it was just a female fight,” and although Davis “got her ass whooped,” Renee was charged with aggravated battery. Matthew urged defendant to “let it go.” Eventually, defendant stated, “[a]ll right, all right bro, I got you.” Thereafter, they returned to the front room of the house.

¶ 27 Upon their return, Matthew sat down on the loveseat, beside Renee, and defendant “walked around [as if] he was going to sit in the black chair again,” but after a couple of seconds, he “went behind the loveseat to a black foldout chair.” With defendant sitting behind him, Matthew and defendant had a conversation about two street gangs. Defendant then told Matthew, “ ‘You're not my brother. You never have been.’ ” Matthew did not get a chance to respond, because, the next thing he knew, there was a “warmness running down [his] neck.”

¶ 28 Matthew flung up his hand and “realized [he] was cut,” and now his hand “started to get cut,” too. As Matthew “ducked down and spun around * * * to the left,” he saw defendant “scooting over and cutting Renee.” Defendant had in his hand the kitchen knife that Matthew had earlier used. Matthew yelled, “[‘N]o[!]’ ” and “swung over the couch.” Matthew believed that he had grazed defendant somewhere in the face,...