People v. Crawford

2021 IL App (5th) 170496

197 N.E.3d 140

458 Ill.Dec. 727

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

v.Jared R. CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 5-17-0496

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Filed June 11, 2021

James E. Chadd, Catherine K. Hart, and Jerry A. Jefferson, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Molly Wilson Kasiar, State's Attorney, of Harrisburg (Patrick Delfino, Patrick D. Daly, and Julia Kaye Wykoff, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 A jury convicted defendant of aggravated battery for causing bodily harm to another in a public place of accommodation or amusement ( 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(c) (West 2014)). Defendant appealed, raising several contentions of error. For the reasons below, we reverse defendant's conviction and remand for a retrial.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Throughout this opinion, we provide only the facts necessary for the resolution of this appeal. We provide a brief recount of the proceedings below and provide further detail, as necessary, in the analysis section.

¶ 4 On April 6, 2016, the State charged defendant, Jared R. Crawford, by information with one count of aggravated battery (count I) (id. ), for knowingly causing bodily harm to Salathiel Johnson by striking him in the back of the head with a beer bottle at Los Amigos Bar, a public place of accommodation, on April 3, 2016. The trial was set for October 11, 2017. At the close of the business day on October 6, 2017, the State filed additional charges on defendant, stemming from an incident involving a shooting in the parking lot of Los Amigos Bar on April 3, 2016, which occurred after Johnson was hit with a beer bottle. Count II asserted that defendant unlawfully possessed a weapon as a felon (id. § 24-1.1(e)) and count III asserted that defendant attempted first degree murder by shooting at Veran Guyton with a firearm with the intent to kill him (id. § 8-4(c)(1)(C)). The day of trial, the State filed another charge for aggravated discharge of a firearm for defendant's knowing discharge of a firearm in the direction that defendant knew or reasonably should have known to be occupied by a person (count IV) (id. § 24-1.2(a)(2)). Count IV stemmed from the same events as counts II and III.

¶ 5 After hearing arguments from both parties, the trial court determined that the additional charges were not subject to compulsory joinder in that, based upon the face of the information, they did not constitute a continuation of the same act. However, the court found that count II was required to be severed from count I and that counts II, III, and IV should be tried separately from count I. Accordingly, the court determined that the trial would continue as planned on count I and that the remaining counts would be continued. Prior to trial, the court granted defendant's motion in limine to bar the State from presenting any evidence as to any alleged shooting committed by defendant after the incident in count I that gave rise to any charges.

¶ 6 At trial, the State presented the testimony of three witnesses—Johnson, Guyton, and Gus Zertuche. Guyton averred that he went to Los Amigos Bar to celebrate his birthday. He recalled that while speaking with Kody Weatherington, defendant approached Guyton and accused him of "placing money" on defendant's head. Guyton denied knowing anything about defendant's accusation. At that time, Johnson stepped in between defendant and Guyton. He further testified that, after telling defendant "we're not here for any trouble or anything," defendant struck Johnson in the head with a beer bottle. Guyton averred that he did not touch defendant at any time and was not standing in a large group of people when he saw defendant hit Johnson. On cross-examination, Guyton denied colluding with Johnson and Zertuche to fabricate his testimony.

¶ 7 Johnson testified that he stepped between defendant and Guyton, who were arguing. When he turned to make sure Guyton exited the bar, Johnson was hit with a bottle. Johnson did not see who hit him.

¶ 8 Zertuche averred that he was the lead bouncer at Los Amigos Bar the night of the incident and was long-time friends with Guyton. Later, Zertuche also testified that he was friends with Johnson. Zertuche stated that after Guyton and Johnson entered the bar, defendant and his friends became increasingly irritable. On two occasions, Zertuche had to tell defendant's friends to "chill out." Near closing time, Zertuche overheard defendant and Guyton arguing. He testified that Guyton and Johnson attempted to walk away from defendant and his friends, but they kept following Guyton and Johnson. Zertuche stated that at that time, his eyes were on Johnson and defendant, who started walking at a fast pace coming up behind Johnson. Zertuche further stated that he saw defendant reach for a full beer bottle and hit Johnson on the back of the head. Zertuche testified that he did not see Johnson or Guyton touch defendant at any point. On cross-examination, Zertuche averred that once the bar closed, he went to Johnson's house to check on him, but Johnson was at Guyton's house. So, Zertuche went to Guyton's house. Zertuche denied that he colluded with Johnson and Guyton to create a false story that defendant hit Johnson with the beer bottle.

¶ 9 During Zertuche's testimony, the State admitted Los Amigos Bar's surveillance video depicting the night of the incident. Zertuche narrated the events of the video and identified certain persons on the video. He testified that, at the time Johnson would have been hit, the video only showed Johnson's head go down and come back with Johnson reaching to the back of his head. During closing arguments, the State conceded that the video did not show defendant, or anyone, hit Johnson.

¶ 10 Despite the court's earlier ruling on the motion in limine to bar testimony regarding the shooting, Zertuche's answer to defense counsel's question regarding his bias on cross-examination mentioned the shooting in the parking lot. The State then argued that defense counsel opened the door, and the court allowed the State during redirect examination to elicit further testimony about the shooting, which brought the entire event of the shooting that had been barred before the jury.

¶ 11 Strawberry Hood and Weatherington testified on behalf of the defense. Hood stated that after defendant bought her a drink, she headed to the dance floor. As she walked to the dance floor, a few people walked past her to join the crowd that had already gathered near the front of the bar. Hood explained that security sensed something was going on, so everybody was rushing to one area. She, at no time, witnessed defendant involved in a confrontation with Guyton or Johnson.

¶ 12 Weatherington testified that he was speaking to Guyton immediately before Johnson was struck. He stated that as he spoke with Guyton, defendant was to the side of him buying drinks for everybody. Then, Johnson came up and bumped Guyton like they were friends to sort of push him out of the way so they could get closer to defendant, "pretty much *** trying to surround [defendant]." Weatherington averred that defendant did not throw anything or hit anybody. He further stated that defendant kept his hands down and someone else could have hit Johnson. On cross-examination, Weatherington admitted that he was a convicted felon for delivery of cannabis in 2016 and possession of a controlled substance in 2009.

¶ 13 After the parties made closing arguments and the court provided the jury with jury instructions, the jury convicted defendant of aggravated battery. The court then sentenced defendant to five years’ imprisonment. Defendant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013).

¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15 On appeal, defendant asserts several contentions of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel. We do not consider each contention and address only those necessary for the resolution of this appeal or that may arise on remand.

¶ 16 A. Admission of Evidence Regarding the Shooting

¶ 17 Defendant argues that Zertuche's testimony concerning the shooting that occurred after the alleged aggravated battery of Johnson was improperly admitted. As noted above, prior to trial, the trial court granted defendant's motion in limine to bar the State from presenting any evidence as to any alleged shooting committed by defendant after the incident that gave rise to any charges.

¶ 18 During cross-examination of Zertuche, defense counsel inquired into the relationship between Zertuche, Guyton, and Johnson. After Zertuche testified that he went to Guyton's house to check on Johnson, the following exchange occurred:

"[MR. DREW:] Did you go by—you went by [Johnson's] house to check on him. Did you go by [defendant's] to check on him?

[ZERTUCHE:] No, I didn't.

[MR. DREW:] How come you didn't go by and see him?

[ZERTUCHE:] Why would I go by and see him? I didn't—at the time I didn't know anything was wrong with him. And they had fleed [sic ]. And as far as I know, I'm standing in between them, he's shooting at me also so why would I go see him when I'm standing in the middle and he's shooting at me, too? If I shoot at you are you going to come and ask me how I'm doing?

MR. DREW: Your Honor, may we approach?

THE COURT: You may.

(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION HELD OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY AS FOLLOWS:)

MR. DREW: This is outside the scope we talked about.

THE COURT: Well, because you brought it up.

MR. DREW: Okay.

THE COURT: So, I mean, he's answering your questions.

MR. DREW: Okay, then I'll move there.

(END OF SIDEBAR DISCUSSION.)

[MR. DREW:] So did you go to the Evansville hospital to see [defendant] after he had been shot?

[ZERTUCHE:] No, I did not.

[MR. DREW:] And, in fact, the reason—when you got back to [Johnson] and [Guyton's] house the reason that things had to change and it had to be [defend

...