People v. Cline

2022 IL 126383

193 N.E.3d 1220

456 Ill.Dec. 812

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,

v.John CLINE, Appellee.

Docket No. 126383

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed January 21, 2022.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Joshua M. Schneider, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Douglas R. Hoff, Deputy Defender, and Christopher G. Evers, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, for appellee.

David E. Koropp, of Fox, Swibel, Levin & Carroll, LLP, of Chicago, for amici curiae The Innocence Project, Inc., et al.

JUSTICE THEIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant John Cline was convicted of residential burglary ( 720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2014)), following a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County. The appellate court reversed his conviction because the only evidence tying him to the burglary was a fingerprint found on a portable headphone case inside the residence and there was no evidence that the State's fingerprint expert verified his results with another examiner. 2020 IL App (1st) 172631, 441 Ill.Dec. 166, 156 N.E.3d 501. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Defendant was charged with a single count of residential burglary. A bench trial commenced on December 14, 2016.

¶ 4 At trial, Tom Slowinski testified that on September 1, 2015, he lived alone in a three-story, walk-up apartment at 4057 North Kedvale Avenue in Chicago. When he left home around 8:15 a.m., the front and back doors of his apartment were locked. He returned around 6:15 p.m. and found the front door ajar and scratched. Inside, Slowinski discovered that his apartment had been "ransacked" and "torn apart." After police arrived, he walked them through the two-bedroom apartment and identified various missing objects, including a laptop, a gun safe and four firearms, video games, and a pair of Shure headphones.

¶ 5 Referencing a photograph taken inside his apartment of a Shure headphone case, Slowinski testified that, when he left home on September 1, the headphones were in the metal case. When he returned, the case had been moved to the floor, and the headphones were gone. Slowinski testified that he did not know defendant and had not given him permission to enter his apartment. During cross-examination, he testified that he had traveled the week prior to the burglary and had given his apartment key to his friend, John Heroff, in case of an emergency. Slowinski did not know whether Heroff knew defendant.

¶ 6 Chicago police evidence technician Hiram Gutierrez testified that on September 2, 2015, he processed the headphone case. In photos he took, Gutierrez identified a "fingerprint ridge impression," which he lifted from the headphone case with clear plastic contact paper. He found no other prints or other forensic evidence inside the apartment. He acknowledged that the impression he recovered was "not a full print," if a full print was defined as "everything."

¶ 7 Chicago police officer Aaron Joy testified that on October 13, 2015, he took defendant's fingerprints. He did so by rolling each of defendant's fingers across a fingerprint scanner to ensure that the entire print was scanned from the left side all the way to the right side of each finger.

¶ 8 Chicago police detective Timothy O'Brien testified that on October 13, 2015, he interviewed defendant after his arrest. He asked defendant if he would have reason to be at 4057 North Kedvale Avenue or inside an apartment at that location. Defendant responded that " ‘he would not be over in that area.’ "

¶ 9 Chicago police officer Daniel Dennewitz testified that he had worked in the department's latent prints unit for about eight years. For approximately one year, he had analyzed, compared, and searched latent fingerprints. He testified that he had trained in this area at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Center. He had also worked as an apprentice with the Chicago Police Department, during which time he took classes with experts in the field and passed annual proficiency examinations. Dennewitz testified that he had previously been qualified as an expert in fingerprint examination and identification approximately five times and had examined "thousands" of fingerprints during his career.

¶ 10 Defendant's attorney did not object to the admission of Dennewitz's testimony and declined to question him about his qualifications. The trial court found Dennewitz qualified to testify as a forensic expert in fingerprint identification.

¶ 11 Dennewitz began his testimony by generally explaining about the nature of fingerprints and specifically about latent prints. A latent print is one that is found at a crime scene that is hidden and needs to be processed. He testified that he reviewed the fingerprint lift recovered in this case. There were four latent prints on the lift. He determined that one was suitable for comparison because it had enough detail from which he could form an opinion.

¶ 12 Dennewitz compared the latent print to a known print of defendant's right middle finger and concluded that they came from the same source. He explained that he had diagrammed approximately 20 points of comparison and marked 9 of them on both prints. Dennewitz testified that he repeated his analysis by using the same identification procedure and compared a known standard of defendant's right middle finger with the latent print. He concluded within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, based on his experience, training, and education, that the two prints came from the same source.

¶ 13 Defendant's attorney did not cross-examine Dennewitz regarding the methodology employed in positively matching the prints. Instead, he questioned him concerning the completeness of the latent print recovered from the headphone case. Dennewitz testified that a full fingerprint is "from one side of the fingernail to the next side of the fingernail. From the top of the fingernail down to the first joint area which would be the crease." Dennewitz acknowledged that the latent print recovered at the scene in this case, in contrast to defendant's known print, only showed a portion of the finger. Dennewitz testified that, had the latent print included those missing portions, he would assume those portions would also match defendant's known print.

¶ 14 Defendant did not present any evidence.

¶ 15 Defendant was found guilty of residential burglary. The trial court found that Slowinski did not give defendant permission to be inside his apartment and, while defendant denied being there to police, his fingerprint was identified on the metal headphone case. The trial court also found the evidence showed that, although one side of the impression was identified on the headphone case as belonging to defendant, it was safe to assume that the missing portion of the latent print would also match defendant's right middle finger.

¶ 16 Defendant, represented by new counsel, subsequently moved for a new trial. He alleged, in pertinent part, that his trial counsel, John Paul Carroll, was ineffective for not vigorously cross-examining Dennewitz to undermine his conclusion that the fingerprint belonged to defendant. Defendant did not challenge the lack of evidence that Dennewitz verified his results with another fingerprint examiner.

¶ 17 At the posttrial hearing, Carroll testified that prior to trial he reviewed the discovery provided by the State and developed a defense strategy. It was twofold. First, he sought to convince the court that Dennewitz assumed "the other part of the fingerprint belonged to [defendant]" and, thus, had not made a "positive identification." To achieve that goal, he asked Dennewitz whether he had simply assumed the missing part of the print belonged to defendant. Second, Carroll testified that he attempted to show the State failed to prove defendant was not a guest of Slowinski's friend the week prior to the burglary and that it was thus impossible to determine when defendant's fingerprint appeared on the headphone case.

¶ 18 In denying the posttrial motion, the trial court stated that no one had "presented any evidence that the fingerprint examiner [wa]s incompetent." The trial court sentenced defendant to eight years in prison.

¶ 19 On appeal, defendant asserted that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of residential burglary. Defendant argued that the only evidence tying him to the offense consisted of a single, partial fingerprint on a portable object. Additionally, the State did not offer evidence that Dennewitz followed the accepted methodology for identifying latent fingerprints by verifying his results with another examiner. The appellate court agreed and reversed his conviction. 2020 IL App (1st) 172631, ¶¶ 28-29, 441 Ill.Dec. 166, 156 N.E.3d 501.

¶ 20 Relying upon People v. Luna , 2013 IL App (1st) 072253, 371 Ill.Dec. 65, 989 N.E.2d 655, the appellate court took judicial notice of the " ‘ACE-V’ " method of fingerprint analysis as the widely accepted method of fingerprint identification. 2020 IL App (1st) 172631, ¶¶ 18-19, 441 Ill.Dec. 166, 156 N.E.3d 501. The appellate court noted the ACE-V method requires four steps: (1) analysis, (2) comparison, (3) evaluation, and (4) verification. Id. ¶ 18. Pertinent to defendant's argument, the verification step requires that another examiner repeat the first three steps conducted by the initial examiner. Id. Because the State did not elicit testimony from Dennewitz that he followed the fourth step, the appellate court found that reversal was warranted. Id. ¶ 21. The court concluded the State's evidence was insufficient, as it rested solely on a "flawed examination of a single, incomplete...