Title: People v. Smith

State: illinois

Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court

Document:

People v. Smith, No. 81491 (Ill. S.Ct.) 

Docket No. 81491-Agenda 4-May 
1998.
Opinion filed February 19, 
1999.
JUSTICE HEIPLE delivered the opinion of the 
court:
In 1986, following a jury trial in the circuit 
court of Cook County, defendant, Steven Smith, was convicted of the murder of 
Virdeen Willis, Jr., and was thereafter sentenced to death. On direct appeal to 
this court, we reversed defendant's conviction based upon certain evidentiary 
errors, and remanded to the circuit court for a new trial. People v. 
Smith, 141 Ill. 2d 40 (1990). On remand in 1996, defendant was again 
convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He now appeals that conviction and 
sentence.
Defendant raises 19 separate issues concerning 
both the trial and sentencing proceedings below, including his argument that the 
State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because we agree that 
the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, we 
now reverse. Accordingly, we do not reach the remaining issues.
FACTS
On the evening of June 30, 1985, the victim, 
Virdeen Willis, Jr., his friend Robin Howland, and his cousin Maggie Burnett 
drove to the Shamrock Lounge, a bar owned by Burnett. Willis parked his car in a 
vacant lot next to the lounge, and the three went inside.
Hasan Ali was tending bar at the Shamrock Lounge 
that evening. Burnett introduced Ali to Willis and Howland, who took seats at 
the end of the bar. Ali noticed three African American men enter the lounge and 
sit at a table behind Willis and Howland. He later identified the men as 
defendant, Herbert Stevens, and Robert Spade. Ali explained at trial that he got 
a very good look at the three men because when he saw them, he was concerned 
that they were going to rob the bar. According to Ali, defendant, Stevens, and 
Spade were all wearing dark clothing. Defendant was wearing a black leather 
jacket and a black leather cap. Herbert Stevens, like defendant, was also 
dressed all in black, while Robert Spade was wearing army fatigues.
At some point in the evening, Ronda Caraway 
entered the Shamrock Lounge and walked up to the table at which defendant, 
Stevens, and Spade were seated. (At trial, Ronda stated that Stevens was her 
boyfriend.) Like Ali, Ronda testified that defendant and Stevens were dressed 
all in black, while Spade was wearing army fatigues. She also testified, like 
Ali, that defendant wore a black leather cap.
Ronda spoke to one of the men, who then got up 
and left the lounge with her. (The testimony is unclear whether the man who left 
with Ronda was defendant or one of the other two men.) The man then returned to 
the lounge and rejoined his companions. Thereafter, Ronda went to the home of a 
friend who lived in an upstairs apartment located across the vacant lot from the 
lounge. Ali testified that after the man who left with Ronda returned, 
defendant, Stevens, and Spade sat in the lounge for a while, and then got up and 
exited together.
Approximately four or five minutes later, Willis 
got up and left the bar with Howland and Burnett. Howland testified that while 
exiting the lounge, she was in front, followed by Willis and then Burnett. Once 
outside, Howland "hung back" a step in order to allow Willis and Burnett to 
continue their conversation as the three walked towards Willis' car. Howland did 
not notice anyone else on the street when she, Willis, and Burnett left the 
bar.
As they reached the car, Willis was standing 
immediately next to Burnett, and Howland was standing three or four feet behind 
them. As Howland turned her head back towards the bar, she saw a shadowy figure 
with a gun in his hand walk past her at a distance of two to three feet. Next, 
she heard a pop and saw a puff of smoke. Looking back towards the gunman, 
Howland saw that he was standing between two and four feet away from Willis and 
Burnett.
Howland then saw the gunman crouch down over 
Willis, who was lying on the ground. At this point, the gunman was facing Willis 
and Burnett, with his back to Howland and to the street. Howland ran back to the 
bar to get help. When she returned to Willis, he was lying on the ground and was 
unresponsive. Howland noticed that Willis was bleeding and appeared to have been 
shot in the neck.
Howland described the gunman as wearing black 
clothing and a black hat. Howland could not say, however, whether the gunman was 
wearing a sports coat, a sweatshirt, or a leather jacket, nor could she state 
whether his hat was a cap or some other style. Howland testified that it was too 
dark to make out further details, and that she never saw the gunman's 
face.
Paramedics from the Chicago fire department 
arrived at the scene of the shooting shortly before 10 p.m. A paramedic 
testified that when he arrived on the scene, Willis was lying motionless in the 
vacant lot with an apparent gunshot wound to the neck. He had no pulse and was 
not breathing. The paramedics took Willis to a hospital where he was pronounced 
dead. An autopsy revealed that Willis died of a gunshot wound that entered the 
upper left area of his neck and lodged in his spine.
Ronda Caraway testified that at the time of the 
shooting she had fallen asleep at her girlfriend's apartment overlooking the 
vacant lot. After she was awakened by her girlfriend, Ronda went out on the fire 
escape and saw an ambulance and some people gathered in the lot next to the 
Shamrock. A few hours later, police came to the apartment where Ronda was 
staying. After speaking with Ronda, the police brought her to the police station 
during the early morning hours of July 1. Ronda remained at the police station 
all that day, and over the next night. Sometime on July 2, the police showed 
Ronda several pictures, including those of defendant; Robert Spade; and her 
boyfriend, Herbert Stevens. Ronda identified photos of the three men.
In the days immediately after the shooting, 
Debrah Caraway, Ronda's sister, heard that Ronda was being questioned by police, 
and Debrah went to various police stations to look for her. On July 2, Debrah 
finally found her sister at the 51st Street police station. While at the 
station, Debrah told police that she had witnessed the shooting and that 
defendant was the man who shot Willis. The police then showed her a photo 
line-up, and Debrah identified defendant as the gunman.
Also on July 2, Robin Howland was shown a group 
of photographs, including one of defendant, by Chicago police detectives. At 
that time, Howland stated that she did not recognize any of the men in the 
photographs. At no time did Howland identify defendant as the gunman.
Willis' cousin Burnett, who was standing next to 
Willis when he was shot, was also shown a group of photographs, including one of 
defendant. However, Burnett was unable to identify defendant as the man who had 
shot her cousin. Although present in the courtroom during the testimony of 
Howland, Burnett did not testify at trial.
Based upon Debrah's identification, defendant 
was arrested on July 4. Defendant consented to a search of his apartment, where 
police recovered two black hats, two black jackets, a pair of black pants, and a 
pair of black shoes. Hasan Ali identified one of the jackets and one of the hats 
as items worn by defendant on the night of the shooting.
Testimony of Debrah 
Caraway
At trial, Debrah Caraway testified that she and 
a man named Pervis "Pepper" Bell drove to the Shamrock Lounge on the evening of 
June 30, 1985, and parked across the street. Debrah testified that she had asked 
Pepper for a ride to the Bucket of Blood, a bar near the Shamrock, in order to 
look for her sister Ronda.
Debrah denied that she was looking for Ronda so 
that the two of them could go out and get cocaine. Debrah admitted, however, 
that she was using cocaine around the day of the shooting, but denied that she 
used it every day. Debrah testified that she was looking for Ronda so that the 
two of them could go to a bar called the Paradise Club to "hang out."
On cross-examination, Debrah testified that she 
could not recall telling defense investigator Mary Waller that:
When confronted with the written statement given 
to Waller, Debrah admitted that the document contained the statement read by 
defense counsel. She further admitted that she had made the statement and had 
signed the document. However, Debrah testified that "it wasn't meant like that," 
and explained that her budget did not allow her to use cocaine 
everyday.
After Pepper and Debrah parked across the street 
from the Shamrock Lounge, Pepper got out of the car, but Debrah did not. Debrah 
testified that she had decided to remain in the car for a while. When Debrah did 
exit the car, she stepped in some water. According to Debrah, she paused to wipe 
the water off of her shoes, because she had just polished them.
While she was attending to her shoes, Debrah 
looked across the street into the vacant lot next to the Shamrock Lounge. There, 
she observed a man exit the lounge, light a cigarette, and walk into the lot. To 
the best of Debrah's recollection, the man was alone when he exited the bar. A 
few seconds later, she saw another man, whom she had known for 2½ years and whom 
she recognized as defendant, exit the lounge from the same door as the first 
man. Defendant had a gun in his hand. Defendant then walked up to the first man 
and shot him. Debrah testified that the defendant, the victim, and she were the 
only ones on the street at that time. She testified that after the shot, 
defendant turned and looked both ways while moving his hand back and forth. She 
further stated that at one point after the shooting, defendant was facing in her 
direction, toward the street.
Debrah denied telling defense investigator 
Waller that: "At this time, I ran across the street to the Bucket of Blood. At 
this time, I still saw no one else on the street or in the parking lot." 
Confronted with her signed written statement, Debrah maintained, "I don't think 
I told her that. I don't think that's what I said." Pressed by defense counsel, 
Debrah admitted that she signed the statement, but added, "[B]ut that don't make 
her being understood what I said." When asked whether Debrah had read the 
document over with the investigator, and whether the investigator had also read 
it to her, Debrah stated, "I think so, but I was sleep when yaw came 
[sic]."
Debrah further testified that she then went into 
the Bucket of Blood to look for her sister. Not finding her, she rejoined Pepper 
back out on the street and left with him to go to another bar, the Paradise 
Club, to look for her sister. Again not finding her, Debrah had a few drinks and 
left. Debrah did not speak to the police that night.
During the time that Ronda was at the police 
station, Debrah heard that the police were questioning her sister. Debrah then 
went to several different police stations looking for Ronda, but was unable to 
locate her. Debrah testified that she had heard that the police were trying to 
implicate Ronda in something she had seen, and Debrah believed that the police 
had confused Ronda with herself.
When Debrah found her sister, Ronda was crying 
and told her that the police were trying to say that she brought the gun to the 
shooting. At trial, Debrah denied telling investigator Waller that Ronda had 
told her that police would not let her use the bathroom, or that the police 
would not give her anything to eat. Debrah also denied telling Waller that the 
police had been harassing Ronda and that the police were holding Ronda against 
her will.
Debrah also denied having seen Pepper at the 
police station. However, when confronted with her earlier signed statement, 
Debrah admitted that she probably did tell Waller that she had seen Pepper at 
the station. Questioned further, Debrah admitted that Pepper was at the station, 
and that he was in handcuffs at the time, but stated that she could not recall 
seeing Pepper bloody or with a swollen eye. Debrah admitted, however, that she 
had read and signed a statement which indicated that Pepper was in a room at the 
police station, handcuffed and bleeding from the mouth.
The Defense's Case
Mary Waller, an investigator for the Cook County 
public defender's office, was the sole witness for the defense. Waller testified 
that on October 26, 1995 (about five months prior to the second trial), she 
conducted an interview of Debrah Caraway. During the interview, Debrah told 
Waller that on the night of the shooting, she had been going to the Paradise 
Club to drink with Ronda and smoke some crack cocaine. She also said that around 
the time of the shooting, she smoked cocaine every day.
Debrah told Waller that the police had been 
harassing Ronda and accusing her of having been involved with the murder. Debrah 
said that the police had held Ronda her against her will, and tried to make 
Ronda say something about her role in the shooting. According to Debrah, Ronda 
had told her that the police would not give her anything to eat and would not 
allow her to use the washroom. Debrah also told the investigator that she had 
seen Pepper at the station, handcuffed, that he was bleeding from the mouth, and 
that his eye was swollen.
ANALYSIS
When considering a challenge to a criminal 
conviction based upon the sufficiency of the evidence, this court will not retry 
the defendant. People v. Wittenmyer, 151 Ill. 2d 175, 191 (1992). 
Rather, in such cases the relevant question is whether, after viewing the 
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 
doubt. People v. Young, 128 Ill. 2d 1, 49 (1989), citing Jackson v. 
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979). Thus, it 
is our duty in the case at bar to carefully examine the evidence while giving 
due consideration to the fact that the court and jury saw and heard the 
witnesses. People v. Bartall, 98 Ill. 2d 294, 306 (1983); People v. 
Jefferson, 24 Ill. 2d 398, 402 (1962); People v. Bartley, 25 Ill. 2d 175 (1962); People v. Young, 128 Ill. 2d 1 (1989). If, however, 
after such consideration we are of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient 
to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we must reverse 
the conviction. Bartall, 98 Ill. 2d  at 306; Jefferson, 24 Ill. 2d  at 402; Bartley, 25 Ill. 2d 175; Young, 128 Ill. 2d 1. The 
testimony of a single witness, if it is positive and the witness credible, is 
sufficient to convict. People v. May, 46 Ill. 2d 120 (1970); People 
v. Morehead, 45 Ill. 2d 326 (1970); People v. Hampton, 44 Ill. 2d 41 (1969); People v. Glover, 49 Ill. 2d 78, 84-85 (1971). While 
credibility of a witness is within the province of the trier of fact, and the 
finding of the jury on such matters is entitled to great weight, the jury's 
determination is not conclusive. Rather, we will reverse a conviction where the 
evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a 
reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. People v. Smith, 141 Ill. 2d 40, 
55 (1990); People v. Pellegrino, 30 Ill. 2d 331 (1964); 
Glover, 49 Ill. 2d  at 84-85.
The State's case against defendant hinges upon 
the testimony of one witness, Debrah Caraway. Although two other witnesses 
placed defendant in the Shamrock Lounge on the night of the murder, only Debrah 
Caraway directly linked defendant to the crime. Neither Howland nor Burnett, 
both of whom were within feet of the gunman when he shot Willis, ever identified 
defendant.
Defendant argues that Debrah's testimony was 
contradicted in important respects by the testimony of the State's more reliable 
witnesses and was in other respects sufficiently impeached so as to severely 
undermine its credibility. Defendant contends that the weakness of the State's 
chief witness, along with the lack of other direct evidence linking defendant to 
the crime, required a not guilty verdict as a matter of law. We 
agree.
The most glaring deficiency in the evidence 
involves Debrah's account of how the shooting occurred. Both Ali and Howland 
testified that Willis, Howland, and Burnett left the bar together. 
Moreover, Howland testified that she and Burnett accompanied Willis to the 
parking lot and were standing near him when he was shot. Nevertheless, Debrah 
claimed that Willis came out of the bar alone, and was alone 
when he was shot.
Although the State argues that Debrah's 
testimony was merely equivocal on this point, and thus did not directly conflict 
with the testimony of Ali and Howland, we find this argument unconvincing. The 
record is clear that despite some initial uncertainty, Debrah later confirmed 
that at the time of the shooting, "There wasn't anybody else that I saw." After 
describing the shooting, Debrah was asked again whether "it was just those two 
people there in the lot, is that correct, the man with the gun and the man with 
the cigarette?" Debrah answered, "Right." Asked whether there was a lady 
standing next to the gunman when he allegedly waved the gun back and forth, 
Debrah answered "Not that I can recall."
A second important inconsistency exists between 
the testimony of Debrah and the testimony of the bartender, Hasan Ali. According 
to Debrah, a few seconds after Willis exited the bar, defendant came out of the 
same door, walked up to Willis and shot him. Debrah twice confirmed that the 
gunman came out of the same door as Willis. In contrast, Ali testified that 
defendant and his companions had already left the bar together four or five 
minutes before the victim exited the lounge with Howland and Burnett. 
As the State repeatedly argued, Ali was watching defendant and his companions 
very carefully due to his fear that they were going to rob the bar. Ali's 
credible testimony seriously undermines Debrah's testimony that the defendant 
followed Willis out of the lounge and shot him.
Although the State attempted at trial to 
reconcile these conflicting accounts by suggesting that defendant could have 
waited in a vestibule between the two doors leading from the bar to the street, 
it presented no direct evidence of this. Acknowledging this fact, the State 
argues that its vestibule theory is a reasonable inference from the evidence. 
The theory, however, did not emerge until the State's closing argument in 
rebuttal, and thus the defense had no opportunity to test it at trial. Moreover, 
Howland was never asked whether she had passed anyone in the vestibule on her 
way out of the bar, nor was Ali asked if this was an area in which someone could 
hide. Under the circumstances, we do not find the State's inference 
reasonable.
We also find that Debrah's credibility was 
repeatedly impeached with her signed statement given to defense investigator 
Waller five months before trial. Debrah testified that she did not use drugs 
every day around the time of the shooting, yet she signed a statement saying 
that she did. On the stand, she denied that she had been looking for her sister 
in order to go out and use drugs; however, she signed a statement which 
indicated that she had been. She testified initially that she had not seen 
Pepper at the police station. When confronted with her earlier signed statement, 
Debrah admitted that she had probably said that to the investigator. Later, 
Debrah admitted that she really had seen Pepper, and that he had been in 
handcuffs, but that she did not remember his being bloody.
Debrah's alleged actions after the shooting also 
tend to undermine her credibility. According to Debrah, after witnessing the 
shooting, she did not go for help and did not call the police. Instead, 
according to her testimony, she went into a bar to look for her sister, then 
went to another bar, had a few drinks, and finally went to her stepmother's. 
Moreover, Debrah did not tell the police that she had witnessed the shooting 
until two days later, when she found her sister at the 51st Street police 
station under suspicion of involvement with the murder.
Finally, the record indicates that Debrah had a 
motive to falsely implicate defendant because a possible alternative suspect, 
Herbert Stevens, was the boyfriend of her sister Ronda. There is testimony from 
Debrah that the police were attempting to implicate Ronda in having provided the 
gun to the gunman. By identifying defendant, rather than Stevens, Debrah 
exonerated her sister's boyfriend, and at the same time may have deflected 
suspicion away from her sister.
In sum, although the testimony of a single 
witness is sufficient to convict if positive and credible 
(Morehead, 45 Ill. 2d  at 330; Hampton, 44 Ill. 2d  at 45; 
Glover, 49 Ill. 2d at 84-85), given the serious inconsistencies in, and 
the repeated impeachment of, Debrah Caraway's testimony, we find that no 
reasonable trier of fact could have found her testimony credible. Moreover, the 
circumstantial evidence tending to link defendant to the murder merely narrowed 
the class of individuals who may have killed the victim, without pointing 
specifically to defendant. Two other men were with defendant on the night of the 
shooting. They, like defendant, were also wearing dark clothing. Furthermore, 
Robin Howland and Maggie Burnett, who were standing only a few feet from the 
gunman at the time of the shooting, were unable to identify 
defendant.
What is involved here is the standard of proof 
which is applicable to all crimes. That is to say, conviction beyond a 
reasonable doubt. Whether the crime charged be trespass, shoplifting, armed 
robbery, or murder, the test is the same. The burden of meeting this standard 
falls solely on the prosecution. If it fails to meet this burden, a defendant is 
entitled to a finding of not guilty. No defendant is required to prove his 
innocence.
While a not guilty finding is sometimes equated 
with a finding of innocence, that conclusion is erroneous. Courts do not find 
people guilty or innocent. They find them guilty or not guilty. A not guilty 
verdict expresses no view as to a defendant's innocence. Rather, it indicates 
simply that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof. While there 
are those who may criticize courts for turning criminals loose, courts have a 
duty to ensure that all citizens receive those rights which are applicable 
equally to every citizen who may find himself charged with a crime, whatever the 
crime and whatever the circumstances. When the State cannot meet its burden of 
proof, the defendant must go free. This case happens to be a murder case 
carrying a sentence of death against a defendant where the State has failed to 
meet its burden. It is no help to speculate that the defendant may have killed 
the victim. No citizen would be safe from prosecution under such a 
standard.
It is our considered judgment that defendant was 
not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment of the 
circuit court of Cook County is reversed.
Judgment 
reversed.
JUSTICE RATHJE took no part in the consideration 
or decision of this case.