Court Opinion

ID: 9860215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:14:38.769335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:17.431547
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. The trial court gave careful consideration to this petition for post-conviction relief. One of my disagreements with the trial court, however, is its holding that evidence that the crime was committed by the individual referred to as “John Doe” could not be admitted. The trial court cites People v, Thomas, 145 Ill. App. 3d 1, 13, 495 N.E.2d 639, 647 (1986), for the proposition that “if the circumstances are too remote or speculative, such evidence is properly excluded.” This rule has been criticized as a “rubric,” which avoids articulation of the trial concerns on which it is based. M. Graham, Cleary & Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence §403.1, at 193 (7th ed. 1999). Our supreme court has recognized that it is difficult “to define the precise limits” which control admission of evidence that the crime could have been committed by another. People v. Nitti, 312 Ill. 73, 90, 143 N.E. 448, 454 (1924). Courts in other jurisdictions have held that when the State relies upon direct evidence in a criminal case, circumstantial evidence that someone other than the defendant had a motive to commit the crime charged is irrelevant in the absence of other evidence to connect the third party to the crime. State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95, 102-03, 62 P.3d 220, 226 (2003). By contrast, if the prosecution’s case against the defendant is largely circumstantial, then the defendant may neutralize or overcome such evidence by presenting sufficient evidence of the same character tending to identify some other person as the perpetrator of the crime. State v. Clark, 78 Wash.,, App. 471, 479-80, 898 P.2d 854, 859 (1995) (arson conviction reversed where evidence was excluded that another person had motive, opportunity, and ability to commit offense). The same approach is followed in Illinois. Direct evidence was presented in the case relied upon by the trial court, the Thomas case. In Thomas, the victim of a rape positively identified the defendant as the perpetrator. Thomas, 145 Ill. App. 3d at 8, 495 N.E.2d at 644. It is a mistake to apply the Thomas rule to the present case, where it is undisputed that the case against defendant was entirely circumstantial. No direct evidence was presented in this case, only evidence that defendant had “motive and opportunity.” “Opportunity alone, however, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction unless the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no one else had the opportunity to commit the crime.” People v. Dowaliby, 221 Ill. App. 3d 788, 797, 582 N.E.2d 1243, 1249 (1991). Under Dowaliby, not only is other-perpetrator evidence admissible, the State has an affirmative burden to prove it does not exist. Dowaliby is the case most similar to ours, but the State unfortunately does not address it in its brief. In Dowaliby, the First District reversed a murder conviction because the State did not prove that the defendant was the only person who had the opportunity to murder the victim. Dowaliby, 221 Ill. App. 3d at 800-01, 582 N.E.2d at 1250-01. Our case is not the standard other-perpetrator case. But even applying the standard rule set out in Thomas, the argument that John Doe’s connection to this case is “remote or speculative” is clearly mistaken. Doe had been involved in a sexual relationship with the victim within six months of the murder, before she began her relationship with defendant. Doe lived a short distance from the victim’s apartment in Normal. According to Doe, the two had been about to rekindle their romance. Doe visited the victim a few days before her murder only to find her in the company of her latest boyfriend, Swaine. Doe left town a few hours after the murder. Doe originally told police he was out of town at the time of the murder, but later admitted that was not correct. It is interesting to consider the State’s argument in its brief: “Defendant had an overwhelming motive to commit the offense. [The victim] broke up with defendant in mid-July. Thereafter, defendant was consumed with jealous rage because he suspected her relationship with Swaine, his friend and roommate. Defendant’s brief says that he ‘had never been violent’ towards her, but he had broken her door down twice trying to find his ex-girlfriend with a new love interest [once with Swaine inside, once with Doe inside]. Defendant was still trying to let go, even after he left Normal. However, defendant still loved her when he went back home to Rockford.” Everything the State said regarding defendant applies equally to Doe. The victim broke up with Doe. Doe was trying to get back together with the victim at the time of the murder. Doe visited the victim a few days before the murder, only to find her in the company of Swaine. Doe was capable of violence and in fact had been charged with domestic violence against another girlfriend. Doe’s opportunity to commit the offense was significantly greater than defendant’s almost impossible “opportunity.” Defendant should have been allowed to present the same type of evidence regarding Doe that the State presented against defendant. The prosecutor assured the court and counsel, prior to trial, that Doe was not a viable suspect. That was not true. At the postconviction hearing, Lieutenant Daniels testified that Doe was a viable suspect prior to trial and remains so even today. Prior to trial, the State did not disclose that Doe had been asked to submit to a polygraph examination but would not follow the polygrapher’s direction, perhaps intentionally in order to avoid completion of the examination. The State did not disclose that Doe agreed to another examination but later backed out. The State did not disclose that Doe had been investigated for domestic violence against a girlfriend and charged with that offense. It is a violation of due process for the prosecution to fail to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence. U.S. Const., amends. V XIV; Brady, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194. Both defense counsel and the trial court were entitled to rely on the prosecutor’s representations that there was no additional evidence from which it could be argued that Doe was a viable alternative suspect. Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 695, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1166, 1192, 124 S. Ct. 1256, 1275 (2004) (after prosecutor’s representation, defendant under no duty to “scavenge for hints of undisclosed Brady material”). The prosecutor himself introduced evidence that the crime may have been committed by someone other than defendant. The prosecutor introduced evidence that there were three suspects in this case: defendant, Swaine, and Stacy Gates. The prosecutor introduced evidence that Swaine and Gates had alibis and argued that defendant was the only suspect who did not have an alibi, leaving the jury to believe no one else had the motive and opportunity. In closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury that Swaine had “a dead-bang ironclad alibi” and that the prosecution had also looked at Gates and “a lot of people.” “And guess who sits in the courtroom *** with the gap in his alibi still unclosed even after all this?” With all this evidence of other suspects, why did the prosecutor object to such evidence being presented as to Doe? Swaine and Gates were helpful to the prosecution case, but Doe was not because he did not have an alibi. If the trial court had known what the prosecution knew about Doe, it would not have accepted the prosecution’s argument that Doe “has nothing to do with this case.” If the trial court had known what the prosecution knew, it would not have granted the prosecution’s motion in limine. The State argues that Doe did have an alibi, that he was with a girlfriend at 1 p.m. on the day of the murder. That argument is contrary to the position that the State has taken until now, that the murder was committed before 12:15 p.m. so that defendant could drive the 124 miles back to Rockford and be home when his mother got home at 2:15 p.m. The State now argues that the murder could have occurred at 2 p.m. and the mother could be lying. The prosecutor, however, told the jury that the mother was not lying; if the jury had been required to believe she was lying in order to convict, the jury very well may not have done so. The problem underlying this entire case is that the State is attempting to build a mountain out of grains of sand. There are no facts that are important. When defendant shows that his odometer reading would not permit a trip to Bloomington, the State argues that the odometer was tampered with. When defendant presents evidence that a prior owner tampered with the odometer, the State argues that defendant could have used his uncle’s car. When it is convenient, the murder occurred at 2 p.m. and the mother was lying. Given the weak and shifting evidence in this case, any withholding of evidence by the State warrants reversal. The State argues that evidence of Doe’s difficulties with the polygraph examination and his domestic-violence charge could not have been presented to the jury. The evidence certainly could have been considered by the court, however, in determining whether Doe was a viable suspect. Evidence of the domestic-violence charge could certainly have been considered by the jury. Character evidence, such as the commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts (of the accused), may be admitted for any other purpose than to show propensity to commit crime. The concern with such evidence is not that it is not relevant, but that it is unduly prejudicial to the defendant, that it has “too much” probative value. “Courts generally prohibit the admission of this evidence to protect against the jury convicting a defendant because he or she is a bad person deserving punishment.” People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159, 170, 788 N.E.2d 707, 714 (2003). That concern is not present when the witness is not the defendant. It is not important whether the jury dislikes a witness, only whether it believes he is telling the truth. It is inconsistent for the State to argue that it could present character evidence against defendant, but similar character evidence could not have been presented against Doe. In closing argument, the prosecutor commented on the instruction that evidence that defendant had been involved in conduct other than that charged in the indictment could be considered only on the issue of the defendant’s motive. “We have considerable amount of evidence as to Mr. Beaman’s conduct on other occasions; knocking in doors and that sort of thing.” “You’re not here to convict Mr. Beaman because he’s knocked in a door on some other occasion, or because he’s been loud, or obnoxious, or rude on some other occasion. But as that evidence goes to the overall motive involved in his relationship with Jennifer, you may consider it in that light.” It is not clear that the polygraph evidence could not have been presented to the jury. If the State wanted to make that argument, it should have disclosed the evidence and given the trial court an opportunity to rule on it. The ban on polygraph evidence is not absolute. People v. Sims, 358 Ill. App. 3d 627, 634, 832 N.E.2d 237, 243 (2005). For example, polygraph evidence may be considered as a factor in determining whether the defendant gave a separate statement voluntarily. People v. Jefferson, 184 Ill. 2d 486, 495, 705 N.E.2d 56, 61 (1998). “Where polygraph evidence is admitted at a pretrial hearing on a defendant’s motion to suppress, but not at the trial itself, the question of a defendant’s guilt or innocence is not at issue.” Sims, 358 Ill. App. 3d at 635, 832 N.E.2d at 243. Doe’s refusal to take a polygraph examination was properly considered by the police in determining whether he was a suspect and should have been considered by the court on the motion in limine for that same purpose. Some of the cases cited by the State involved a “bogus-confession” issue and are very different from the case before us. In People v. Tate, 87 Ill. 2d 134, 137-39, 429 N.E.2d 470, 472-73 (1981), there was direct evidence — eyewitness testimony — that defendant robbed a Food Mart. A “close friend of defendant[’s]” testified that a third party had told him that the third party had been the robber but at trial, the third party denied the statement. “Bogus confessions” present a real problem to the administration of justice. If all a defendant needs to do to escape conviction is find a friend who will testify that a third party confessed to the crime, many trials will end in shambles. The direct evidence in Tate is what distinguishes that case from our case. If the case against the Tate defendant had consisted solely of an unsupported confession, which the defendant denied making, surely the fact that another individual had allegedly made a similar confession would have been admitted substantively, and the other individual’s conviction for a similar offense would also have been admitted. I also disagree with the trial court that there was no Napue violation. See Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1217, 1221, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 1177 (1959) (even where the prosecution did not solicit false testimony, but allows it to go uncorrected when it appears, due process is violated). A critical question in this case was whether defendant made phone calls from his home at 10:37 and 10:39 a.m., after leaving the bank at 10:11 a.m. If defendant was still in Rockford at 10:37 a.m., he could not have been in Normal at noon. Detective Freesmeyer testified that he timed the trip at 31 minutes, meaning that defendant could not have been home until 10:42 a.m. The prosecutor, arguing to the jury, conceded that it was theoretically possible that defendant could have made the calls; he could have been speeding. The prosecutor continued, however, that “it is very highly unlikely” that defendant made the calls. “You remember we timed that route, too. Detective Freesmeyer drove that in 31 minutes in the middle of a busy day.” The prosecutor told the jury that defendant could not have made the calls if he had been driving reasonably. That was misleading. Detective Freesmeyer had driven from the bank to the home in 25 minutes and he had discussed that fact with the prosecutor, although it was not mentioned in his police report. At the postconviction hearing, Freesmeyer testified that defendant could have made the phone calls. A defendant’s right to a fair trial is violated when a prosecutor allows misleading testimony to be presented to a jury. It is problematic when the State relies on evidence of motive and opportunity to prove guilt. A defendant may have both motive and opportunity and still be innocent of the crime. For that reason, the State is required to prove not just that defendant had motive and opportunity, but that no one else had the opportunity to commit the crime. Dowaliby, 221 Ill. App. 3d at 797-98, 582 N.E.2d at 1248-49. John Doe could have committed this crime. A complete stranger could have committed this crime. It was the prosecution’s burden to disprove those possibilities. See Dowaliby, 221 Ill. App. 3d at 801, 582 N.E.2d at 1251 (“an intruder could have entered the house on the evening of Jaclyn’s disappearance and murdered Jaclyn”). Instead, the prosecution convinced the trial court not to allow any mention of John Doe, misrepresenting that Doe was not a viable suspect. This conviction should be reversed and the cause remanded.