Court Opinion

ID: 9905255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 23:03:08.676613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:54.708230
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (4th) 221013
                                                                                FILED
                                                                           November 28, 2023
                                         NO. 4-22-1013
                                                                               Carla Bender
                                                                           4th District Appellate
                                 IN THE APPELLATE COURT                          Court, IL

                                          OF ILLINOIS

                                      FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                       )     Appeal from the
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                             )     Circuit Court of
           v.                                              )     Peoria County
MARQUIESE TALLEY,                                          )     No. 20CF426
           Defendant-Appellant.                            )
                                                           )     Honorable
                                                           )     John P. Vespa,
                                                           )     Judge Presiding.

               JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
               Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Zenoff concurred in the judgment and
opinion.

                                           OPINION

¶1             Following a jury trial, defendant, Marquiese Talley, was convicted of aggravated

criminal sexual assault and armed robbery and sentenced to consecutive terms of 45 years and 35

years in prison. Defendant appeals, arguing this court should remand for a new Batson hearing

(Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986)) because the procedures used during the initial Batson

hearing were inadequate and resulted in an insufficient record to review the merits of his Batson

challenge. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶2                                     I. BACKGROUND

¶3                                        A. Indictment

¶4             In August 2020, a grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant with,

inter alia, aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.30(a)(8) (West 2020)) (count I),
armed robbery (id. § 18-2(a)(2)) (count II), and criminal sexual assault (id. § 11-1.20(a)(1))

(count III).

¶5                                         B. Jury Trial

¶6             In November 2021, the case proceeded to trial. During jury selection, James

Hodges, an African American man who was a police officer with the Peoria Police Department,

indicated he knew all of the police officers and technicians who were listed as potential witnesses.

When asked whether this knowledge would impact his ability to be fair, Hodges stated, “I work

with them, so I don’t think so.” Hodges, on further inquiry, confirmed he could be a fair and

impartial juror. Hodges further indicated he was familiar with the “protocols” his fellow officers

follow and had previous experience with cases involving victims of sexual assault. Hodges stated

he would not necessarily believe his fellow officers over another witness, but rather, he would “go

by the *** evidence and the facts of the case.” Based upon this information, defense counsel

challenged Hodges for cause, a challenge which the trial court rejected upon objection of the State.

¶7             Later, when a panel of potential jurors that included Hodges was tendered to the

State, the State used a peremptory challenge to strike him. Defense counsel asked to be heard on

the matter. After a sidebar conference off the record and the removal of the potential jurors from

the courtroom, the following exchange occurred:

                       “THE COURT: But would you like to address your concern

               now?

                       [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Sure, Judge. Judge, Mr. Hodges is

               the only—I think one of two black individuals on the jury. He’s the

               only black male on the jury, I believe. We had discussed the issue

               with respect to him being a police officer in the back. There was—

                                               -2-
[the State] actually objected to a challenge for cause. He has

indicated no reason in the world why he couldn’t be a fair and

impartial juror, and yet [the State] has struck him. I would like to

hear a race-neutral reason, under Batson, why.

       [THE STATE]: Well, Your Honor, respectfully, just because

counsel—I have no obligation to tell him anything. I have a right to

do a prima facie peremptory. I don’t owe him any explanation. If

the Court, however, would want an explanation, that would be a

different reason, which I can articulate, Judge.

       THE COURT: First of all, there’s one African American; is

that what I’m supposed to say? The other one was Filipino, I think.

So [the] State just removed the only African American in the jury

pool. That African American raised his hand, wanted to come back

there, and told us stuff. I mean, he’s a police officer and he knows

all the police officers. He knows a lot of the hospital workers.

       And there’s certainly not a pattern. I can’t think of the

phrase, but I know it’s already been decided that one cannot form a

pattern. One removal, by definition, cannot be a pattern of—now—

the words are escaping me now. Pattern of what? But for Batson

purposes.

       In the interest of cleanliness, [the] State—and I agree with

[the] State, they—that they’re not required to give a reason. You get

peremptories. You get to do it. You don’t like—you don’t like the

                                -3-
way—I don’t know what. I mean, it could be oddball reasons. None

of my business. In [the] interest of cleanliness, would you like to

volunteer whatever your reason was?

       [THE STATE]: Yes, Judge.

       THE COURT: Okay.

       [THE STATE]: Officer Hodges is a police officer with

Peoria Police Department. He’s indicated that he knows all of the

officers. He knows, I believe, the analyst also from the Springfield

laboratory. As I was thinking about the statements that he made in

the Court’s chamber in front of counsel and I, it—it appears to me

that I—I did not want to put him in the position of being on a jury

of this seriousness, knowing certainly that if the defendant’s

convicted this would be a ready-made reason for our Appellate

Court to perhaps use it as a reason that the person should have been

excused. So I didn’t want to be in that position.

       It has nothing to do with Officer Hodges’ race. He is a fine

officer. I know Officer Hodges. And I just felt, all things considered,

that it would be best that I relieve him of being in that position while

he’s an active duty police officer.

       THE COURT: All right. One person needs to be satisfied,

and it’s me, and I’m satisfied. So. I hope [defense counsel] is, too,

but anyway, a satisfactory reason was given and none—none was

required. But anyway, that is something an—an Appellate Court

                                 -4-
               could, of course, look at if—if there will be one in this case. Before

               we stop, then—and that’s the end of that issue. Or did you want

               anything else, Mr.—

                       [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, that’s the end of the issue.

                       THE COURT: All right. That’s the end of that issue.”

¶8             At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found defendant guilty of the charges set

forth in counts I through III of the indictment.

¶9                                          C. Sentencing

¶ 10           In March 2022, the trial court, after merging the findings of guilt on the sexual

assault charges, sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 45 years and 35 years in prison.

¶ 11           This appeal followed.

¶ 12                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13           On appeal, defendant argues this court should remand for a new Batson hearing

because the procedures used during the initial Batson hearing were inadequate and resulted in an

insufficient record to review the merits of his Batson challenge. The State disagrees.

¶ 14                                   A. Unpreserved Error

¶ 15           Defendant acknowledges he has failed to preserve the alleged error for review but

asks it to be considered as second-prong plain error. See People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 66,

23 N.E.3d 325 (“To preserve an alleged error for review, a defendant must both make an objection

at trial and include the issue in a posttrial motion.”). Under the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing

court may consider an unpreserved error

               “when a clear or obvious error occurred and (1) the evidence is so closely balanced

               that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant (first-

                                                   -5-
               prong plain error) or (2) the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the

               defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process (second-prong

               plain error).” People v. Schoonover, 2021 IL 124832, ¶ 27, 190 N.E.3d 802.

Our first step under the plain-error doctrine is to determine whether a clear or obvious error

occurred. People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 21, 211 N.E.3d 414.

¶ 16                                  B. Standard of Review

¶ 17           The parties disagree as to the appropriate standard of review to be applied to the

issue presented in this case. Defendant asserts we should apply the de novo standard of review

because the issue presented is one of law. The State disagrees, asserting we should apply the clearly

erroneous standard of review based upon precedent from this court.

¶ 18           We initially reject the State’s assertion that this court has previously applied the

clearly erroneous standard of review to an issue similar to the one currently before this court.

People v. Sanders, 2015 IL App (4th) 130881, 34 N.E.3d 219, upon which the State relies, does

not support the State’s assertion. In fact, absent from Sanders is any reference to the clearly

erroneous standard of review.

¶ 19           Illinois case law is, as the State notes, replete with cases referencing the clearly

erroneous standard of review when addressing Batson claims. However, the actual application of

that standard of review has occurred when the issue concerned the trial court’s ultimate

determination on the Batson claim. See, e.g., People v. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d 1, 25, 794 N.E.2d 314,

330 (2002); People v. Davis, 233 Ill. 2d 244, 261-62, 909 N.E.2d 766, 775-76 (2009). In this case,

the trial court’s ultimate determination on the Batson claim is not at issue. Indeed, defendant makes

clear in his reply brief he is not challenging the court’s ultimate determination: “[T]he State

misconstrues [defendant’s] procedural arguments as a substantive argument about the underlying

                                                -6-
merits of the Batson objection.” (Emphases in original.).

¶ 20           To determine the appropriate standard of review to be applied to the issue presented

in this case, we must consider the nature of the issue or question presented. We do so by examining

the specific argument and contentions raised by defendant.

¶ 21           Again, defendant argues the procedures used during the initial Batson hearing were

inadequate and resulted in an insufficient record to review the merits of his Batson challenge.

Defendant contends the trial court erroneously collapsed and skipped steps of the Batson procedure

and failed to make any “express” ruling, including whether he made a prima facie showing of

discrimination. Defendant further contends the court improperly required him to show a pattern of

exclusion to establish a prima facie showing of discrimination and erroneously believed a party

can use a preemptory challenge for any reason without explanation.

¶ 22           Based upon our examination of the argument and contentions raised by defendant,

we find the nature of the issue or question presented is, as defendant asserts, one of law. It concerns

the adequacy of the procedures used by the trial court when considering defendant’s Batson

challenge. It is well-established that questions of law are subject to de novo review. People v.

Caballes, 221 Ill. 2d 282, 289, 851 N.E.2d 26, 31 (2006).

¶ 23           An application of the de novo standard of review to the issue presented in this case

would be consistent with federal case law—case law cited by defendant—finding de novo review

was appropriate where the defendant claimed the trial court “failed to appropriately conduct the

Batson inquiry.” United States v. McMath, 559 F.3d 657, 663 (7th Cir. 2009). The State

nevertheless asserts McMath should not be followed because it created a novel “preliminary step”

in determining the applicable standard of review by asking the question of whether the defendant

has “overstated” a claim of error. See id. at 663 n.2 (acknowledging the court had previously

                                                 -7-
declined a defendant’s invitation to apply de novo review where it found the defendant’s claims of

legal error to be overstated). McMath did not, however, create a novel preliminary step. To the

contrary, a reviewing court’s careful consideration of the nature of the issue or question presented

has always been necessary to determining the appropriate standard of review; a reviewing court

does not simply rely upon a party’s characterization of the issue or question presented.

¶ 24           Accordingly, we find it appropriate to apply the de novo standard of review to the

issue presented in this case. That is, we will consider, without deference to the trial court, whether

defendant has shown the procedures used by the court when considering his Batson challenge were

inadequate.

¶ 25                                    C. Batson Procedure

¶ 26           In Batson, 476 U.S. at 89, the United States Supreme Court held the equal

protection clause of the fourteenth amendment (U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1) prohibits the State

from using peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors solely on the basis of their race. The

Supreme Court established a three-step process for determining whether the State used its

peremptory challenges to remove potential jurors due to their race. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-98.

Since the Batson decision in 1986, our courts have had occasion to set forth the process for

evaluating a Batson challenge. See, e.g., People v. Davis, 231 Ill. 2d 349, 360-64, 899 N.E.2d 238,

245-47 (2008); People v. Shaw, 2014 IL App (4th) 121157, ¶¶ 16-20, 21 N.E.3d 802.

¶ 27           Under the first step, a defendant “must make a prima facie showing that the [State]

has exercised [a] peremptory challenge[ ] on the basis of race.” Davis, 231 Ill. 2d at 360. A

defendant does so by producing sufficient evidence for the trial court “ ‘to draw an inference that

discrimination has occurred.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 170 (2005)).

When determining whether the requisite showing has been made, the court “must consider ‘the

                                                -8-
totality of the relevant facts’ and ‘all relevant circumstances’ surrounding the peremptory strike to

see if they give rise to a discriminatory purpose.” Id. (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 94, 96-97). Our

courts have specifically found that the following factors should be considered:

               “ ‘(1) racial identity between the [party exercising the peremptory

               challenge] and the excluded venirepersons; (2) a pattern of strikes

               against African-American venirepersons; (3) a disproportionate use

               of peremptory challenges against African-American venirepersons;

               (4) the level of African-American representation in the venire as

               compared to the jury; (5) the [State’s] questions and statements [of

               the challenging party] during voir dire examination and while

               exercising peremptory challenges; (6) whether the excluded

               African-American venirepersons were a heterogenous group

               sharing race as their only common characteristic; and (7) the race of

               the defendant, victim, and witnesses.’ ” People v. Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d

               481, 501, 852 N.E.2d 771, 783-84 (2006) (quoting People v.

               Williams, 173 Ill. 2d 48, 71, 670 N.E.2d 638, 650 (1996)).

In addition to these factors, a comparative juror analysis—an analysis which examines the State’s

questions to prospective jurors and the juror’s responses—is another factor to be considered.

Davis, 231 Ill. 2d at 361-62. If the court determines a defendant has made the requisite showing,

the process moves to the second step. Id. at 362-63.

¶ 28           Under the second step, the State must articulate a race-neutral reason for exercising

the preemptory challenge to strike the prospective juror. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d at 17. A race-neutral

explanation is one based upon something other than the juror’s race. Id. After the State gives a

                                                -9-
race-neutral reason for striking the juror, the defendant “may then rebut the proffered explanation

as pretextual.” Davis, 231 Ill. 2d at 363. So long as the State articulates race-neutral reasons for

striking the prospective juror, the process moves to the third step.

¶ 29           Under the third and final step, “the trial court must determine whether the defendant

has shown purposeful discrimination in light of the parties’ submissions.” Id. “The ultimate burden

of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the

strike.” Id.

¶ 30                D. The Trial Court’s Application of the Batson Procedure

¶ 31           In this case, the trial court conducted a sidebar conference after defense counsel

asked to be heard on the State’s use of a preemptory challenge to strike Hodges. The record, we

note, contains no indication as to the substance of the discussion during the sidebar conference.

See Sanders, 2015 IL App (4th) 130881, ¶ 41 (stating the party making the Batson challenge is

“responsible for preserving the record, and any ambiguities must be construed against him”). The

court then gave defense counsel the opportunity to address his concern after removing the

prospective jurors from the courtroom.

¶ 32           On the record, defense counsel asserted a Batson challenge. Counsel articulated

three grounds for the challenge: (1) Hodges was “the only black male on the jury,” (2) the State

objected to the challenge of Hodges for cause, and (3) Hodges indicated he could be a fair and

impartial juror.

¶ 33           After articulating the grounds for the Batson challenge, defense counsel attempted

to advance the process to the second step of the Batson proceeding without a finding by the trial

court concerning a prima facie showing of discrimination. Specifically, counsel invited the State

to provide “a race-neutral reason, under Batson, why.” At that point, the State asserted it had no

                                               - 10 -
obligation to tell counsel the reason for its strike—there had been no finding of a prima facie

showing of discrimination. The State rejected counsel’s invitation to provide race-neutral reason

for its use of a preemptory challenge to strike Hodges.

¶ 34              The trial court, after hearing defense counsel’s Batson challenge and the grounds

therefore as well as the State’s assertion that it was under no obligation to provide a race-neutral

reason for its strike, addressed, “[f]irst of all,” the grounds articulated for the Batson challenge.

Specifically, the court acknowledged the State “removed the only African American in the jury

pool” and there had been prior discussion involving Hodges. Additionally, the court addressed

whether there had been a pattern:

                         “And there’s certainly not a pattern. I can’t think of the

                  phrase, but I know it’s already been decided that one cannot form a

                  pattern. One removal, by definition, cannot be a pattern of—now—

                  the words are escaping me now. Pattern of what? But for Batson

                  purposes.”

The court concluded, after its review, it “agree[d] with [the] State, they—that they’re not required

to give a reason.”

¶ 35              After agreeing with the State, the trial court asked the State it if would “volunteer”

its reason for the strike “[i]n the interest of cleanliness.” The State complied and provided its reason

for the strike.

¶ 36              The trial court, after hearing the State’s reason for the strike, found it to be “a

satisfactory reason.” In so finding, the court again noted the State was not required to give a reason.

Before concluding on the issue, the court allowed defense counsel to add “anything else,” to which

counsel responded, “No, that’s the end of the issue.” The court concluded, “All right. That’s the

                                                  - 11 -
end of that issue.”

¶ 37            At the outset, we reject defendant’s contention on appeal that the trial court required

him to show a pattern of exclusion to establish a prima facie showing of discrimination, finding it

is not supported by the record. After addressing the grounds articulated by defense counsel for the

Batson challenge, the court addressed whether there had been a pattern of strikes. Contrary to

defendant’s assertion, the court’s comments do not show an erroneous belief “that one removal

could not constitute discrimination for Batson purposes.” Instead, the court’s comments show it

considered an additional factor not addressed by defense counsel. See Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d at 501

(noting a factor for the court’s consideration is whether there had been “ ‘a pattern of strikes against

African-American venirepersons’ ”). We note Shaw, 2014 IL App (4th) 121157, ¶¶ 24-25, upon

which defendant relies, is factually distinguishable, in that the trial court there made a single

finding “ ‘the Defendant has not established a pattern under Batson’ ” after the State had argued

there “ ‘has to be a pattern.’ ” See also People v. Trejo, 2022 IL App (2d) 190424-B, ¶ 13 (finding

the trial court’s remarks there “ ‘has to be a pattern’ ” and “ ‘[i]t has to be systematic’ ” appeared

to “betray the *** court’s fundamental misconception about what must be shown under Batson”

(emphases omitted)).

¶ 38            We also reject defendant’s contention that the trial court erroneously believed a

party can use a preemptory challenge for any reason without explanation, finding it is not supported

by the record. After defense counsel raised a Batson challenge to the State’s use of a peremptory

challenge to strike Hodges, the court did not simply reject the challenge. Rather, the court advanced

the challenge through a specific process for evaluation. When doing so, the court correctly stated

the State was not required to offer a reason for its preemptory challenge after it found, as discussed

below, defendant had not made a prima facie showing of discrimination. See Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d at

                                                 - 12 -
501-02 (“The party attempting to exercise a peremptory challenge is not required to provide race-

neutral reasons for the exercise of its peremptory challenge if a prima facie case of purposeful

racial discrimination has not been demonstrated.”).

¶ 39           We now turn to defendant’s contentions that the trial court erroneously collapsed

and skipped steps of the Batson procedure and failed to make any “express” finding, including

whether he made a prima facie showing of discrimination.

¶ 40           Defendant correctly points out the trial court did not make “express” findings

concerning whether he made a prima facie showing of discrimination or whether he had

established a showing of discrimination. However, a review of the proceedings makes clear the

requisite findings were made, even if the precise language was not used. Specifically, it shows the

court found defendant had not made a prima facie showing of discrimination, and even if he had,

the State’s race-neutral reason for the strike was credible and persuasive and, therefore, defendant

had not made a showing of discrimination.

¶ 41           In support of his contention that the trial court erroneously collapsed and skipped

steps of the Batson procedure, defendant initially asserts the court improperly considered

race-neutral reasons at the first stage. We disagree. In articulating the grounds for the Batson

challenge, defense counsel acknowledged the prior discussion concerning Hodges and “him being

a police officer.” The court then, when addressing the grounds for the Batson challenge,

acknowledged the prior discussion concerning Hodges and the information he provided. Given the

exchange, we are not convinced the court improperly considered race-neutral reasons at the first

stage. Indeed, at that point, the State had not even been called upon to provide a race-neutral reason

for its use of the preemptory challenge to strike Hodges.

¶ 42           Defendant also asserts the trial court failed to consider all necessary factors at the

                                                - 13 -
first stage. We disagree. The court addressed the grounds articulated by defense counsel for the

Batson challenge. In addition, the court addressed whether there had been a pattern of strikes, a

factor not addressed by counsel. Although the court did not explicitly address the other factors, we

are not convinced the court failed to consider them. See People v. Howery, 178 Ill. 2d 1, 32, 687

N.E.2d 836, 851 (1997) (“[T]he trial court is presumed to know the law and apply it properly.”);

Sanders, 2015 IL App (4th) 130881, ¶ 41 (declining to conclude the trial court erred because it did

not sua sponte address other factors not raised by the defendant).

¶ 43           Last, defendant asserts the trial court failed to allow him the opportunity to rebut

the race-neutral reason for the strike articulated by the State. We disagree. Initially, defendant has

provided no authority to support his position that the court was required to allow him an

opportunity to rebut the reason articulated by the State. See People v. Crawford, 2013 IL App (1st)

100310, ¶¶ 106-07, 2 N.E.3d 1143 (rejecting the defendant’s claim that he had a “ ‘right’ ” to rebut

the State’s proffered race-neutral reason). Moreover, the court did, in fact, allow defense counsel

to add “anything else,” which counsel declined. We, having found defendant’s assertions are

without merit, reject his contention that the court erroneously collapsed and skipped steps of the

Batson procedure.

¶ 44           In sum, defendant has not shown the procedures used by the trial court when

considering his Batson challenge were inadequate. Absent any error, we need not proceed further

in our analysis under the plain-error doctrine.

¶ 45           We emphasize, while defendant has not established any error, the Batson hearing

conducted in this case should not serve as a model for future Batson hearings. Instead, when a

Batson challenge is asserted, the prudent course would be for all interested parties to pause and

ensure a hearing is conducted where the challenge is methodically advanced through the necessary

                                                  - 14 -
steps, with all findings being set forth on the record. We encourage a review of our prior decision

in Shaw, 2014 IL App (4th) 121157, ¶¶ 32-35, which set forth a step-by-step approach to

conducting a Batson hearing.

¶ 46                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 47           For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 48           Affirmed.

                                              - 15 -
                     People v. Talley, 2023 IL App (4th) 221013

Decision Under Review:    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County, No. 20-CF-
                          426; the Hon. John P. Vespa, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                 James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Lilien, and Drew A. Wallenstein,
for                       of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.
Appellant:

Attorneys                 Jodi M. Hoos, State’s Attorney, of Peoria (Patrick Delfino,
for                       Edward R. Psenicka, Ivan O. Taylor Jr., and Lawrence M.
Appellee:                 Bauer, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of
                          counsel), for the People.

                                       - 16 -