People v. Blalock

2022 IL 126682

215 N.E.3d 118

465 Ill.Dec. 322

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

v.Harold BLALOCK, Appellant.

Docket No. 126682

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed September 22, 2022

Rehearing denied November 28, 2022

James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Douglas R. Hoff, Deputy Defender, and Christopher L. Gehrke, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Katherine M. Doersch, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

Brian O'Connor, Charles F. Smith, Alexander J. Kasparie, and JordanM. Blain, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates, David M. Shapiro and Alexa Van Brunt, of Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, and Lauren Myerscough-Mueller, of The Exoneration Project, all of Chicago, for amici curiae The Innocence Project et al.

CHIEF JUSTICE ANNE M. BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In 2016, defendant Harold Blalock filed a motion in the circuit court of Cook County seeking leave to file a second successive postconviction petition challenging his 2000 conviction for murder. Defendant alleged that newly discovered evidence showed that the police officers who interrogated him had engaged in a pattern and practice of police brutality and that his resulting confession was the product of police coercion. The circuit court denied defendant leave to file his successive petition, finding he failed to establish both cause and prejudice as required by section 122-1(f) of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2016)). On appeal, the appellate court concluded that defendant had failed to establish cause and affirmed. 2020 IL App (1st) 170295, 448 Ill.Dec. 212, 175 N.E.3d 1122. We now affirm the judgment of the appellate court, although we do so on other grounds.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On January 22, 1999, at approximately 6 p.m., Veronica Riley was shot and killed near the corner of 51st Street and South Racine Avenue in Chicago. Police investigators spoke with an eyewitness to the crime, Tara Coleman, who gave a signed, written statement on January 24, 1999, in the presence of Assistant State's Attorney Clarissa Palermo and Chicago police detective James O'Brien.

¶ 4 In her statement, Coleman stated she was at "Mr. B's" barbershop on 51st Street, just east of Racine Avenue, on January 22, 1999. At approximately 6 p.m., defendant, whom she knew from grammar school, entered. The two said hello and hugged, and defendant went to use the pay phone. Approximately five minutes later, three men, whom Coleman did not know, came into the shop. Defendant got off the phone and began arguing with the men. The three men then left the shop, followed by defendant, who got into the passenger side of a two-door, Pontiac Grand Am that was parked in front of the barbershop, facing west on 51st Street. The car pulled out, and a few minutes later, Coleman heard gunshots and looked outside. Coleman saw defendant in the Grand Am with his hand out the window, holding a gun and shooting in the direction of Racine Avenue. Coleman indicated in her statement that she was treated well by the police and Assistant State's Attorney Palermo, that no threats or promises had been made to her, and that she was giving her statement freely and voluntarily. She also acknowledged that Palermo had read the entire statement out loud while she followed along and that she had been allowed to make corrections.

¶ 5 Defendant was interviewed by Chicago police officers and gave a handwritten statement confessing to the shooting. In his statement, defendant said he went to Mr. B's to get a haircut around 5:45 p.m. on January 22, 1999. Once there, he saw his "associate," Marcus Carpenter, driving a two-door, black car and waved him down. Carpenter made a U-turn and parked in front of the barbershop on 51st Street, facing west. Defendant entered the barbershop, exchanged a few words with Coleman, and then called his girlfriend from the pay phone. While on the phone, Carpenter came in, and they talked.

¶ 6 Defendant stated that he then saw two men he knew as Rasou and Banks enter the barbershop. Rasou approached defendant and started talking about a shooting involving defendant's brother that had happened earlier that day next to the barbershop. They then began arguing, and defendant got off the phone. Rasou and Banks left, and shortly thereafter he and Carpenter followed. Carpenter got into the driver's seat of his car and defendant into the passenger seat. At this time, Rasou was standing in front of a restaurant immediately west of the barbershop, and Banks was by a convenience store at the corner of 51st Street and Racine Avenue. According to defendant, Carpenter gave him a gun. Defendant then rolled down the window, and as Carpenter started to drive away, defendant stuck the gun out the window and fired three shots at Rasou. As they drove past Banks, defendant fired two shots. Defendant stated he did not see either Rasou or Banks with a gun. After driving away, defendant got out of Carpenter's car and went to his girlfriend's house.

¶ 7 In his statement, defendant indicated that he saw three women near the convenience store when he started shooting but that he was not trying to kill anyone. Defendant also stated he was treated well by the police and assistant state's attorney, that no promises or threats were made, and that he was giving the statement freely and voluntarily.

¶ 8 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that his inculpatory statement was the result of physical coercion by Chicago police detectives John Murray and James O'Brien. Defendant asserted that the detectives slapped and yelled at him, threatened him, and cut or sliced his fingernails.

¶ 9 At a suppression hearing held on April 29, 1999, Detective Murray testified that he, along with his partner O'Brien, arrested defendant at approximately 9:30 p.m. on January 23, 1999. According to Murray, defendant was transported to Area 1 police headquarters, placed in an interview room, and was not handcuffed at any time while in the room.

¶ 10 At 10 p.m., Murray and Detective John Halloran interviewed defendant. According to Murray, defendant was given Miranda warnings at this time. See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). After defendant provided an alibi involving his girlfriend, the detectives left to interview her.

¶ 11 At approximately 11:15 p.m., Murray again interviewed defendant, this time with O'Brien. During this interview, defendant implicated himself in the murder. Murray then contacted the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. At approximately 12:45 a.m. on January 24, 1999, Assistant State's Attorney Palermo and Murray interviewed defendant. At the end of this interview, defendant chose to have Palermo handwrite his statement. At 3 a.m., defendant gave his statement to Palermo. At the end of the statement, defendant was asked how he was treated, and he stated he was treated well by both the police and Palermo, that no threats or promises had been made, and that he was giving the statement freely and voluntarily. To Murray's knowledge, no detective ever slapped defendant, yelled at him, threatened him in any way, or sliced his fingernails.

¶ 12 Defendant did not testify at the hearing on the motion to suppress, nor did his attorney offer any other evidence in support of the motion. When asked by the court whether he was waiving opening argument, counsel stated, "I am waiving everything." The court then found the State had disproved each of the allegations made in the motion to suppress and concluded defendant's statement was made voluntarily. Accordingly, the court denied defendant's motion.

¶ 13 Defendant's case proceeded to a jury trial on June 22, 2000. While testifying for the State, Tara Coleman recanted her prior written statement. Coleman claimed that, while being interviewed by the police, they had struck her with pens and her statement had not been freely given. Coleman also recanted her grand jury testimony, during which she had confirmed the accuracy and truth of her written statement. In her trial testimony, Coleman denied seeing who the shooter was and denied identifying defendant as the shooter. Coleman was impeached by her written statement, which was published to the jury.

¶ 14 The State also offered the testimony of Detective O'Brien, who testified that Coleman identified defendant as the shooter in her statement, identified defendant in a photo array, and identified defendant in a showup. O'Brien further testified that he was present when Assistant State's Attorney Palermo reduced Coleman's statement to writing and that Palermo reviewed the entire statement with Coleman, who then initialed certain changes and signed the document. O'Brien denied that he or any other officer made threats to Coleman or that they struck her with pens.

¶ 15 Assistant State's Attorney Palermo also testified. She stated that, prior to taking Coleman's handwritten statement, she and O'Brien had interviewed Coleman. After that, she asked O'Brien to leave the room and then asked Coleman how she had been treated. Coleman stated she had been treated "fine." Palermo then took the handwritten statement and reviewed it, page by page, reading it aloud. Coleman was allowed to make changes and then initialed and signed the statement.

¶ 16 Detectives O'Brien and Halloran and Assistant State's Attorney Palermo also testified regarding the circumstances surrounding defendant's interrogation and statement. The witnesses all testified that defendant indicated he was treated well and that his statement was freely given.

¶ 17 Nikki Goodman testified on behalf of defendant. She stated that on the evening of January 22, 1999, she saw Rasou standing in the middle of the intersection of 51st Street and Racine...