People v. C.B. (In re C.B.)

1

2023 IL App (4th) 220909-U

In re C.B., a Minor

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. C.B., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 4-22-0909

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

March 6, 2023

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County No. 21JD63 Honorable Jason Chambers, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

KNECHT JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) respondent had not established plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from the admission of a screenshot of a Facebook profile and (2) the evidence presented was sufficient to show respondent had the requisite knowledge to find him guilty of theft.

¶ 2 After being found guilty of theft, respondent, C.B., was adjudicated a delinquent minor and sentenced to 12 months' supervision. Respondent now appeals from the judgment adjudicating him a delinquent minor, arguing the State failed to (1) lay a proper foundation for the admission of a screenshot of a Facebook profile and (2) prove he knew the subject property was stolen, an essential element of the alleged theft. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. Delinquency Petition

¶ 5 In July 2021, the State filed a petition alleging respondent was a delinquent minor in that he committed the offense of theft on or about May 25 2021. Specifically, the State alleged respondent committed theft by knowingly obtaining control over stolen property, a bicycle belonging to Alexander Godair, knowing the property to have been stolen (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4) (West 2020)).

¶ 6 B. Bench Trial

¶ 7 In February 2022, the circuit court conducted a bench trial. The following is gleaned from the evidence presented.

¶ 8 On May 18, 2021, Alexander Godair parked his vehicle near downtown Bloomington. Approximately an hour after parking his vehicle, Godair noticed his bicycle, a Kink BMX Drifter bicycle, had been stolen off the bicycle rack attached to the back of his vehicle. Godair purchased the bicycle in 2018 for $497.61. He then made several modifications to it, including modifications to the fork, tires, brake system, pedals chain, and grips. One of the modifications cost $169.95. The modifications to the bicycle made it distinguishable from other bicycles. A photograph of the modified bicycle was admitted into evidence. Copies of receipts for the purchase of the bicycle and for one of its modifications were also admitted into evidence.

¶ 9 On May 25, 2021, Godair discovered his bicycle had been listed for sale on Facebook Marketplace. Godair identified a screenshot of a Facebook Marketplace listing as a listing for his bicycle. The screenshot of the Facebook Marketplace listing was admitted into evidence. Godair also identified a screenshot of a Facebook profile as the profile that listed his bicycle for sale. The screenshot of the Facebook profile was admitted into evidence. The screenshot of the Facebook profile has a profile name of "Gbg Redd" and a profile photograph of an apparent black male with a ski mask covering most of his face. Godair did not recognize the male depicted in the profile or his name.

¶ 10 After discovering his bicycle had been listed for sale on Facebook Marketplace, Godair contacted the police and spoke with Police Officer Ronald Fryman. Officer Fryman testified Godair provided him with information about the bicycle and the Facebook profile that listed the bicycle for sale. When asked how the Facebook profile helped in his investigation, Officer Fryman testified, "Looking at the profile pictures as well as-or, I guess, report writing system, I was able to identify the user of this profile as [respondent]." Officer Fryman was then asked to explain the different systems he used to identify "the user as [respondent]," to which he testified, "So, in our EJS report writing system, the name R-E-D-D is associated as an alias with [respondent]."

¶ 11 On the evening of May 28, 2021, Officer Fryman spoke with respondent outside respondent's residence. Audio and video footage of the interaction taken from Officer Fryman's body camera was admitted into evidence. The footage shows Officer Fryman and another police officer approaching respondent's residence on foot. Outside the residence, one male, later identified as respondent, is seen getting off a bicycle and walking towards the house, and two other apparent males are seen sitting on the porch. Upon his approach, Officer Fryman repeatedly asks if any of the males went by respondent's first name. Respondent walks inside the house and closes the door. A moment later, a light turns on inside the house, and respondent can be seen looking outside through the window on the door. Respondent then reaches over, and the light inside turns off. Officer Fryman shines a light at the window on the door, at which point respondent's face can be seen, and Officer Fryman indicates aloud that he recognizes respondent. Respondent comes back outside, and Officer Fryman states he wants to speak with respondent about a listing respondent posted on Facebook Marketplace. Respondent responds, "What do you want to know?" Officer Fryman states he wants to speak with respondent about a black bicycle with yellow tires that respondent posted days earlier and then asks respondent if he knows what he is talking about, to which respondent states, "Yeah." Officer Fryman asks where respondent got the bicycle. Respondent states, a "friend." Officer Fryman asks what friend. Respondent states, "I can't say." Officer Fryman informs respondent the bicycle is stolen and asks again where respondent got it. Respondent responds he did not steal it "if that's what you're asking." Officer Fryman asks where the bicycle is at. Respondent states he sold it. Officer Fryman asks to whom respondent sold the bicycle. Respondent refuses to provide any additional information. At that point, Officer Fryman informs respondent that he would "write it up" that respondent was in possession of the bicycle and then send it to the state's attorney's office for that office to determine if it wanted to charge respondent with theft. Respondent then states he did not have possession of the bicycle. He also, on further inquiry, repeats he did not steal the bicycle and got it from his friend. Officer Fryman again asks for the name of the friend. Respondent states, "You should know I'm not going to tell you." Officer Fryman asks for the name of the person to whom respondent sold the bicycle. Respondent states, someone "on Market Street." Respondent refuses to provide any other information. While the officers are leaving, they discover a suspected bag of marijuana near the bicycle respondent was earlier seen riding, which they then confiscate.

¶ 12 Respondent, who was 14 years old in May 2021, testified he received a bicycle from his friend, Contrell. Respondent did not know Contrell's last name. When asked if he remembered when Contrell gave the bicycle to him, respondent testified, "It was, shoot, whenever the situation happened." When asked if he remembered where he was when Contrell gave the bicycle to him, respondent testified, "I was downtown Market Street." Respondent explained Contrell asked him to sell the bicycle in exchange for half of the proceeds from the sale. When asked what he did with the bicycle after Contrell gave it to him, respondent testified, "Posted it." Respondent explained, "I posted it right where I was at." When later asked if the "only time you actually had the bike was when you were posting it online," respondent testified, "Yes." Respondent testified he told Contrell that he wanted no part in selling the bicycle after the police officers came to his house. Respondent testified he did not sell the bicycle. When asked if he took "the posting down at any time," respondent testified, "No. It's still up." Respondent testified he did not know the bicycle was stolen. He also testified the bicycle always remained with Contrell. Respondent acknowledged he had not previously seen Contrell with the bicycle and did not ask or learn from where Contrell had obtained the bicycle.

¶ 13 With respect to his interaction with the police on May 28, 2021, respondent, when asked if he was expecting to see a police officer that evening, testified, "Not really, no." When asked to explain why he was "kind of not ready to talk to the police" during the encounter, respondent testified, "Because it's the police. I was told not to talk to the police." When asked who told him not to talk to the police, respondent testified, "Everybody. They kill people." Respondent testified he lied to the police when he stated he sold the bicycle. Respondent explained he lied to keep his "friend out of trouble." When asked why he thought his friend would get in trouble if he did not know the bicycle was stolen, respondent testified: "I don't know. Like I didn't know if it was stolen or not stolen. I didn't know. He said I had a bike. It's the police. I know somebody got to get shot. Know it's going to be somebody that happen. It's the police."

¶ 14 Weeks after discovering the bicycle listed for sale on Facebook Marketplace, Godair observed a "younger kid," not respondent, riding the bicycle in downtown Bloomington. Godair confronted the child about the bicycle to which the child indicated his mother had purchased it for him. After Godair explained the bicycle had been stolen from him, the child appeared "really nervous" and then "took off" without the bicycle. The bicycle's condition was "pretty rough." The...