People v. O'Daniell

1

2024 IL App (5th) 230084-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEVIN O'DANIELL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 5-23-0084

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fifth District

August 14, 2024

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 Williamson County. No. 18-CF-667 Honorable Michelle M. Schafer, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE SHOLAR delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Boie and McHaney concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

SHOLAR JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court's order granting defendant's motion in limine, barring introduction of defendant's video-recorded interview with law enforcement, is reversed where the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

¶ 2 Defendant was charged with first degree murder for the death of his infant son, C.O. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion in limine, seeking to bar the introduction of his video-recorded police interview. The Williamson County circuit court granted the motion in limine, barring the State from presenting the video recording in its entirety. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016), the State seeks interlocutory review of the circuit court's order. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 3 I. Background

¶ 4 On November 26, 2018, the State charged defendant by three-count information related to the death of C.O. Count I charged defendant with aggravated battery of a child, a Class X felony, in that on November 23, 2018, defendant committed a battery and knowingly caused bodily harm to C.O., in that defendant dropped C.O. on the floor causing a skull fracture and bleeding. 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(b)(1) (West 2018). Count II charged defendant with aggravated domestic battery, a Class 2 felony, in that on November 23, 2018, defendant caused great bodily harm or permanent disfigurement to C.O defendant's child, by dropping C.O. on the floor. Id. § 12-3.3(a). Count III charged defendant with domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor, in that defendant knowingly made physical contact of a provoking nature with Claudia Bolivar, defendant's girlfriend, in that he pushed Bolivar to the ground. Id. § 12-3.2(a)(2).

¶ 5 On December 12, 2018, the State filed an amended information. The State amended count I to allege that on November 23, 2018, defendant intentionally caused great bodily harm to C.O. in that defendant applied significant force to the body of C.O., causing multiple layers of bleeding in the brain, optical nerve hemorrhage, and other injuries associated with closed-head injuries, resulting in C.O.'s death. The State also added count IV, first degree murder, in that defendant, without lawful justification, by some means applied significant force to the body of C.O knowing such act created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to C.O., ultimately causing C.O.'s death. Id. § 9-1(a)(2).

¶ 6 Detective Maria Dwyer indicated by affidavit of probable cause and through testimony provided at a preliminary hearing and arraignment held on December 18, 2018, that on November 23, 2018, three-month-old C.O. was taken to the hospital by his mother, Claudia Bolivar, where hospital staff found that C.O. was examined and found to be flaccid, without a pulse not responding, cyanotic, and almost at room temperature. Hospital staff observed bruising to C.O.'s left upper lip and left ear. A CT scan revealed a skull fracture and "fresh brain bleed." A radiologist expressed concern about a prior injury in the same area of C.O.'s head.

¶ 7 Claudia was interviewed and advised law enforcement that she was at work between 5:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. and C.O. was left in the sole care of his father, the defendant. When Claudia returned to the residence, she found C.O. and defendant in the living room together with the lights off. Claudia picked up C.O. to change his diaper but "noticed he felt very limp." Claudia turned the lights on and observed that C.O. had "a bloody nose, a bruise on his nose, a bruise on his eye, and a bruise on the left side of his face." Claudia asked defendant what happened to C.O., but defendant continuously replied that nothing had happened.

¶ 8 Claudia attempted to secure C.O. in his car seat, and defendant tried to prevent her from leaving by pushing her down to the ground several times, and raised his arm back as though he was going to strike her with the back side of his hand. Defendant took the car seat containing C.O. from Claudia's possession, took C.O. out of the front door, sat on a porch chair, and began to smoke a cigarette.

¶ 9 Claudia advised that she grabbed the car seat and took C.O. through the house and out the back door. Claudia contacted a neighbor across the street and asked for help. The neighbor, Rashawn McFadden, called the police without allowing Claudia inside of their home. During the time that Claudia waited outside of McFadden's home, defendant again took the car seat containing C.O. Defendant eventually placed the car seat on the ground next to her vehicle. Claudia was able to place C.O. inside of her vehicle and drove him directly to Heartland Regional Medical Center. Law enforcement found defendant walking and detained him.

¶ 10 Detective Dwyer of the Marion Police Department and Special Agent Rolape conducted an interview with defendant at the Marion Police Department at approximately 1:30 a.m. on the night of the incident. Shortly after the officers finished their interview, two officers with the Illinois State Police conducted an interview of defendant. During the interviews, defendant stated that he took care of C.O. while Claudia worked. Defendant indicated that he was the only person with the baby while Claudia was at work. Defendant initially denied that anything had happened to the baby and indicated that he never observed any type of injuries to C.O., stating that Claudia came home and "freaked out." Later, the video-recorded interview shows defendant becoming visibly upset and exclaimed, "I dropped the baby!" Defendant indicated that he was feeding the baby and tripped on a tear in the carpet in the living room and dropped C.O. onto the carpeted floor. Defendant told law enforcement that C.O. fell approximately 3 to 4 feet. Detective Dwyer indicated that Dr. Todd Engdahl with the Heartland Regional Medical Center and Dr. Jason Warner with Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital both noted that the event described by defendant would not have caused C.O.'s injuries. The force applied to C.O.'s body caused bleeding in his brain, optical nerve hemorrhage, and other injuries associated with a closed-head injury. The injuries eventually resulted in his death. Defendant's statements were recorded at the Marion Police Department, and the video recording included the interviews by both the Marion Police Department and the Illinois State Police law enforcement officials.

¶ 11 On November 21, 2022, defendant filed a motion in limine alleging that the video-recorded interview shows that "defendant became visually frustrated and angry with the interrogators." Defendant alleged that the "primary purpose of the State presenting the video during its case-in-chief is to improperly admit otherwise inadmissible propensity and character evidence prior to the defendant testifying." Defendant also argued that: "The defendant has the right to not testify in his own defense at trial, and he cannot be compelled to do so. Permitting the State to introduce the evidence during its case-in-chief improperly permits the State to present testimonial evidence." Therefore, defendant asked the circuit court to "enter an [o]rder prohibiting the State from introducing the video interrogation of the defendant during its case-in-chief." The defendant's motion did not include any legal authority and did not specify any specific portion of the video that it found objectionable, but sought exclusion of the video-recorded interview in whole.

¶ 12 On December 21, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on defendant's motion in limine. The State argued that "this is basically a motion to keep out the defendant's statement." The State argued that defendant was Mirandized and that:

"He became visibly agitated. When describing what had happened during the incident, he admits that he dropped the baby. He gets agitated. Both of those detectives leave the room. Two other detectives come in to speak to him, and those are two male detectives, Warren and Ramage. They again Mirandize him. He again agrees that he understands his Miranda rights, and he goes on to speak with them about the incident."

¶ 13 The State argued that the interview was admissible as "a party-opponent statement" and contended:

"He is very frustrated. He is screaming at detectives. He is angry. But that is what it is. It's his statement. It's a party-opponent statement. There is at no point anytime where he initiates any of his rights except for at the end when he says, I'm done talking, which they quit talking to him. And we are entitled to play his statement."

¶ 14 Defense counsel clarified that they were "not asking that his statement to the police or the questions that he answered to the police be suppressed at this point." Thus, the defendant's motion was not a motion to suppress statements. Rather, defense counsel asked that the "State not be permitted to play the actual video recording during its case in chief, not that the witnesses be barred from testifying as to the interrogation as it occurred." Defense counsel argued that the video was "a means for the State to introduce, bluntly, my client's bad behavior, his frustration, his...