People v. Viramontes

Citation2017 IL App (1st) 142085,69 N.E.3d 446
Decision Date09 January 2017
Docket NumberNo. 1-14-2085,1-14-2085
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heriberto VIRAMONTES, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Melinda Grace Palacio, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Matthew Connors, and Iris G. Ferosie, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

JUSITCE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of multiple felonies including armed robbery and attempted murder. The testimony and evidence presented showed that in the early morning of April 23, 2010, the defendant, Heriberto Viramontes, along with his co-defendant, Marcy Cruz, were driving around the Bucktown neighborhood of Chicago, when defendant suggested they go rob some "white hoes." They parked the vehicle they were in and defendant grabbed a bat before exiting the vehicle. The victims were walking down Damen Avenue when defendant approached them from behind. He swung his bat at the first victim, Stacy Jurich, striking her in the head. He then struck the other victim, Natasha McShane, also hitting her in the head. He then struck Jurich a second time in the neck before making off with their valuables. Both victims spent weeks in the hospital and suffered permanent injuries. McShane's injuries were so extensive she will require 24-hour care for the rest of her life.

¶ 2 On appeal, defendant challenges his conviction for attempted murder, the admission of jail house phone recordings, and the trial court's refusal to tender all of Marcy Cruz's mental health records. After a review of the facts and relevant case law, we conclude the facts of this case are such that a jury could find the defendant intended to kill both victims when he violently struck each of them in the head with a baseball bat. We further find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting jail house phone tapes, because the State had laid a sufficient foundation. Finally, we conclude that defendant's failure to include mental health records on appeal results in the forfeiture of this issue.

¶ 3 JURISDICTION

¶ 4 The defendant appeals from a final judgment of conviction in a criminal case. Defendant was sentenced by the trial court on June 17, 2014. He timely filed his notice of appeal on the same day. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution and Illinois Supreme Court Rules 603 and 606, governing appeals from a final judgment of conviction in a criminal case entered below. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6 ; Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 603, 606 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013).

¶ 5 BACKGROUND

¶ 6 Given the amount of testimony and evidence presented, this background presents only those facts necessary for the disposition of this appeal.

¶ 7 Defendant, Heriberto Viramontes, was charged by indictment with two counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of armed robbery, one count of armed violence, two counts of aggravated unlawful restraint, eight counts of aggravated battery, two counts of unlawful restraint, four counts of misuse of a credit card, and two counts of use of a credit card by another. Defendant was originally charged along with co-defendant Marcy Cruz. The charges arose out of an incident that occurred on April 23, 2010, when defendant robbed Natasha McShane and Stacy Jurich of their purses and other items after violently striking them both on the head with a baseball bat.

¶ 8 Prior to trial, co-defendant Cruz's counsel requested a forensic clinical service evaluation for fitness, and she was found fit to stand trial. Defendant also filed a motion to bar evidence that included over 40 compact discs (CDs) of phone calls from defendant while in Cook County Jail. The court denied the motion, ruling there was nothing about the calls that made them inadmissible or inappropriate.

¶ 9 Also prior to trial, Cruz pled guilty to two counts of attempted first degree murder in exchange for a 22-year sentence. In exchange for her guilty plea, Cruz agreed to testify against defendant at trial. Defendant filed a motion to produce Cruz's mental health records. In response, the State alleged defendant failed to show how the medical records were relevant to Cruz's credibility. The trial court ordered records from Forensic Clinical Services, reviewed the information, and issued subpoenas to several hospitals. The court determined the following records were admissible and relevant: Cruz's admission to Cermak Hospital on April 29, 2010, after her arrest; records from Forensic Clinical Services; and records from Norwegian American Hospital from August 2008. The trial court allowed production of Cruz's most recent mental health records but denied access to earlier records when Cruz was younger. The trial court explained that when deciding which mental health records were discoverable, the court balanced Cruz's right to confidentiality against defendant's sixth and fourteenth amendment rights. The court stated it looked for evidence of psychosis

, alcohol, and/or drug addiction and other psychopathic traits in deciding what to disclose.

¶ 10 At trial, one of the victims, Stacy Jurich, testified that in 2010, she was living in the Bucktown neighborhood in Chicago, Illinois. Jurich met the other victim, Natasha McShane, that same year after McShane moved to Chicago from Ireland. On April 22, 2010, Jurich made plans to meet McShane for dinner after work. They met at 9:00 p.m. at Cans, a restaurant. McShane had a shopping bag from H&M, her purse and her class materials with her. Jurich also had her purse with her. Later, Jurich and McShane walked across the street to the Tavern restaurant, had cocktails and danced.

¶ 11 Jurich testified she and McShane left the Tavern restaurant at around 3:00 a.m., and started walking toward her house. They walked north on Damen Avenue and as they walked underneath a viaduct, Jurich was hit in the head from behind. She felt excruciating pain, lost her equilibrium and suddenly had the taste of metal in her mouth. Jurich fell forward, caught herself, and looked to her left to see McShane being hit in the head with a silver baseball bat. McShane fell down immediately and lifelessly onto the sidewalk. Jurich was hit a second time in her neck. She testified her purse was pulled from her while the robber called her a "stupid bitch." After her purse was pulled from her arm, Jurich saw a man wearing a hoody running away carrying her purse and McShane's belongings.

¶ 12 After the assailant fled, Jurich tended to McShane, trying to support her head, which was extremely bloody. Jurich waved down a taxi and begged the driver to call 911, which he did. When the paramedics arrived Jurich felt severe pain, nausea, and disoriented. As Jurich spoke with police, she felt weak as if she would pass out. After that she could not remember anything else except briefly being in an ambulance, then being in a bright room with people shouting her name.

¶ 13 Jurich testified she woke up in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and felt scared because she did not understand what had happen to her. Her body felt like it was "filled with sand" and she could not move the left side of her body. A few days after being admitted, Jurich had a conversation with the police and informed them that her initial description of the assailant's race was incorrect and his skin was medium brown and not black. She was also able to identify the items McShane had in her possession the night of the attack.

¶ 14 The back of her skull had been cracked open and was stapled shut at the hospital. She had seizures while hospitalized and was medicated. Upon discharge she was not permitted to drive. At the time of trial, Jurich testified that the incident resulted in the loss of her peripheral vision, she continued to have balance issues, and continued to experience excruciating headaches.

¶ 15 Shelia McShane testified that her daughter Natasha had returned to Ireland and could not travel to Chicago to testify because of her brain injury

. Mrs. McShane

testified she cared for her daughter five days a week and Natasha's father, Liam McShane, cared for her the other two days of the week. On April 24, 2010, she received a telephone call from Chicago that her daughter was in the hospital and she needed to come immediately. At the time, her daughter had only been in Chicago for four months, having arrived in January 2010 to complete her Master's Degree in Urban Environmental Planning at the University of Illinois Chicago. Mrs. McShane last saw her daughter prior to the incident in January 2010, when she drove her to the airport to move to Chicago.

¶ 16 Mrs. McShane testified that prior to her injuries, her daughter was very outgoing, full of life, full of energy, loved to travel, and was artistic. When Mr. and Mrs. McShane arrived in Chicago, they went directly to Illinois Masonic Hospital to visit their daughter who was unconscious with her hair was partially shaved off from surgery that relieved pressure off of her brain. Her eyes were swollen and blackened. She remained unconscious for the entire three weeks Mr. and Mrs. McShane were in Chicago. In July 2010, Natasha returned to Ireland via air ambulance.

¶ 17 Mrs. McShane testified that after Natasha returned to Ireland, she experienced a seizure that left her catatonic and in a wheelchair. Prior to the seizure, she had been making slow progress but the seizure set her back significantly. She also had an infection after surgery and a second seizure resulting in a hip fracture. At the time of trial, she could not read, write, or talk. She is mostly wheelchair bound. Mrs. McShane identified a video showing her daughter's physical therapy at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and more recent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Little
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 5, 2021
    ......Viramontes , 2017 IL App (1st) 142085, ¶ 69, 410 Ill.Dec. 221, 69 N.E.3d 446. Our supreme court has emphasized that "this list of factors is nonexclusive. Each case must be evaluated on its own and depending on the facts of the case, some of the factors may not be relevant or additional factors may need to ......
  • People v. Reynolds
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 11, 2021
    ...defendant did so with the specific intent to kill the victim. People v. Viramontes , 2017 IL App (1st) 142085, ¶ 52, 410 Ill.Dec. 221, 69 N.E.3d 446. Because intent is a state of mind, it will rarely be shown with direct evidence. People v. Williams , 165 Ill. 2d 51, 64, 208 Ill.Dec. 341, 6......
  • People v. Scott
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 24, 2020
    ...393. However, it "is rarely proven through direct evidence." People v. Viramontes , 2017 IL App (1st) 142085, ¶ 52, 410 Ill.Dec. 221, 69 N.E.3d 446. The defendant's specific intent to kill may be inferred from the circumstances, including the character of the assault and the use of a deadly......
  • State v. Jenkins, No. 118,120
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 10, 2020
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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