People v. Coleman

2021 IL App (1st) 172416

203 N.E.3d 256

461 Ill.Dec. 102

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Tyrece COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-17-2416

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Filed November 18, 2021

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Andrew Thomas Moore, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Christine Cook, and Stacia Weber, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 On May 25, 2017, after a jury trial, defendant Tyrece Coleman was convicted of the first degree murder of Taiwan Jones. The jury made a separate finding that defendant personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused Jones's death. On August 28, 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years’ imprisonment for the first degree murder charge and an additional 25 years’ imprisonment for the firearm enhancement for an aggregate 50-year sentence.

¶ 2 Timely notice of appeal was filed on September 22, 2017. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6 ) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) and Rule 606 (eff. Mar. 12, 2021), governing criminal appeals.

¶ 3 For the reasons that follow, we reverse defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 A. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements

¶ 6 On March 27, 2012, defendant filed a motion to suppress statements. Defendant's motion alleged that he was improperly interrogated after invoking his right to counsel. Defendant attached to his motion a transcript of contents of his electronically recorded interview (ERI) with Detectives Darryl Hope and Bob Dolton. The transcript contains the following exchange:

"[THE DETECTIVE]: Well, that's what we're trying to figure out, young man.

DEFENDANT: Well, I hope you all get your mother*** test. Can I call my lawyer?

[THE DETECTIVE]: Is that what you want to do?

DEFENDANT: Or call my momma and then call my lawyer. And you can talk to her.

[THE DETECTIVE]: Talk to your mom?

DEFENDANT: Uh-huh.

[THE DETECTIVE]: Do you want us to call your mom?

DEFENDANT: Yeah, you can call my OG. My OG gonna call my lawyer and all that other s***. So I'm ready to make a phone call, sir.

[THE DETECTIVE]: So you don't want to talk to us anymore?

DEFENDANT: I'll, I'll sit here and talk to you all with, with—

[THE DETECTIVE]: No, we don't want to sit here and chit chat. I mean if you want to talk to us, we gonna talk about—

[THE DETECTIVE]: If you want to talk, we can talk. If you don't want to talk to us you don't have to talk to us.

DEFENDANT: D***, I just told you all, man, what I knew, man, for real, man. I don't know who the f*** shot the dude, man. I don't know—like I said, man, none of my clique is even parked by me, you know what I'm saying, everybody ***."

¶ 7 On August 15, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress statements. Neither side presented any live testimony but relied on the ERI and the transcript to support their respective positions. In support of his motion, defense counsel maintained that the police did not scrupulously honor defendant's request for counsel, while the State maintained that defendant did not unequivocally invoke such right.

¶ 8 In denying defendant's motion, the court made the following findings:

"THE COURT: All right, the Court did read the motion, as well as I reviewed the video quite thoroughly, and the video has a transcript of it.

The pertinent parts are here stating that the defendant, among other statements, initially says: Can I call my lawyer, with a question.

The police responded to that in the form of: Is that what you want to do?

And the answer was: Or call my mama, and then call my lawyer, and you can talk to her.

Question again: Talk to your mom?

Answer: U-huh by the defendant.

And question: Do you want us to call your mom?

Answer: Yeah.

And other statements were somewhat made, and ultimately it was just thrown down the fact, Do you want your lawyer, or do you want to talk to us, or do you want your lawyer? ^{[ 1]} And he continued talking.

But the issue here is namely is defendant's statement here ‘Can I call my lawyer’ in the form of a question, and then he puts in ‘Or call my mama.’ Then it somewhat turned into him asking to speak to his mother.

I've reviewed the pertinent case law, and basically the statements must be unambiguous and unequivocal. The statements here are not unambiguous and are not unequivocal as stated. Contingencies are put forth here in the form of questions and then throwing his mother into it.

Certainly the case law does not indicate defendant has a right to talk to his mother. The case law says he has a right to talk to a lawyer if he so wishes to have one. The defendant does not specifically at any juncture simply state I wish to talk to my lawyer. If that were his statement, it would be game over; police are out of the room; all questioning stops. It didn't happen that way. Things became qualified by his statements.

I have to look at all factors here by all of the questions that occurred together; and therefore, based upon this, it's the Court's position that the defendant's motion here is not enough to succeed, and the Motion to Suppress Statements is denied."

¶ 9 Defendant filed a motion for new trial on June 27, 2017, in which he preserved his claim of error resulting from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his statement.

¶ 10 B. Evidence Adduced at Trial

¶ 11 On June 3, 2010, 32-year-old Dayonne Perry worked at a car wash and lived in the south suburbs with his mother. After he got off from work, Dayonne went home, changed his clothes, and drove his 1997 blue Buick Le Sabre car to the home of his best friend, Taiwan Jones, in South Holland, Illinois. Later that evening, the two decided to meet girls, talk, and dance at a club in Dolton called "Mr. Ricky's." Mr. Ricky's was located across the street from another nightclub, "Secrets."

¶ 12 After spending about an hour at Mr. Ricky's, Taiwan and Dayonne went to a restaurant to eat and then drove around to various gas stations where they purchased beer, whiskey, and loose cigarettes. After the clubs closed at about 2:30 or 3 a.m., Taiwan and Dayonne drove around "looking for some more females." When Dayonne reached the intersection of 142nd Street and Grant Street, he saw a woman whom he claimed to have met earlier that evening at Mr. Ricky's and who was identified at trial as Crystal McKire. Crystal was walking towards a gold two-door Sunfire car with another woman who would be identified at trial as her cousin, Kristin McKire. Dayonne pulled his Buick up to the Sunfire facing the opposite direction and told Taiwan that he was going to get Crystal's phone number. Taiwan said that he was going to talk to the other girl. Dayonne testified that he also saw a guy on the sidewalk by the passenger side of the Sunfire wearing blue jeans and a red shirt.

¶ 13 While Dayonne left his car running, he approached Crystal, and the two exchanged phone numbers. Dayonne could not hear the substance of the conversation between Taiwan and Kristin because music was playing in the Sunfire. Dayonne saw the guy in the red shirt cross the street and walk over to a white Chevy Caprice that pulled up and parked behind Dayonne's car after making a U-turn. While Dayonne and Taiwan were talking to the girls, the door of the passenger side of the Sunfire opened, and the head of a person (later identified by Dayonne as defendant) wearing a brown hoodie popped up.

¶ 14 Defendant approached Dayonne and Crystal and asked why she had given Dayonne her phone number. Defendant sounded angry. Crystal ignored him. Defendant walked around the rear of the Sunfire, to where Taiwan was still talking to Kristin. The guy in the red T-shirt, still standing next to the Caprice, asked defendant, "was he good?" Defendant replied, "I'm good."

¶ 15 Dayonne, who had decided to tell Taiwan that they should leave because things did not "seem right," began walking toward Taiwan. From a distance of about eight feet away, Dayonne saw defendant pull a pistol from his waistband and shoot Taiwan twice in the stomach. Taiwan fell to the ground after being shot.

¶ 16 When defendant made eye contact with Dayonne, he quickly turned and ran back to his car. When Dayonne reached his car, he felt a bullet strike his stomach. Dayonne fell into his car, shut the doors, and was shifting gears when another bullet struck him in the back of his head after entering through the car's rear window. Dayonne drove to a stop sign and exited his vehicle upon reaching the Sharks restaurant parking lot. Dayonne yelled for help, flagged down the police, provided a description of the Sunfire, and told the police that his buddy was shot in the chest on Grant Street. Dayonne also described defendant and told the police that he was wearing a brown hoodie.

¶ 17 A nurse who was leaving a club saw Dayonne and told him to sit down and remain calm. Dayonne removed a fragment from his head and saw blood on it. His stomach was also bloody. Dayonne was transported to the hospital by an ambulance and treated for his gunshot wounds. Two days later, doctors removed a bullet from his head.

¶ 18 On June 3, 2010, 34-year-old Kristin McKire worked as a package handler for UPS. At 10 p.m. that evening, Kristin was visiting her cousin, Crystal McKire, at Crystal's house in Harvey, Illinois. Kristin drove to Crystal's house in her 1999 Pontiac Sunfire. While Kristin, Crystal, and another friend, Sherrell, were drinking, defendant called Crystal and invited her to a party at Secrets nightclub in Dolton. When Kristin visited Crystal on the weekends, she would regularly see defendant, whom she had known for about four years. Crystal and Kristin decided to go to the party and drove to defendant's house on...