People v. Dixon

224 N.E.3d 831

2022 IL App (1st) 200162

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

v.Steven DIXON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-20-0162

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, THIRD DIVISION.

Filed November 30, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 11 CR 13613, Honorable Peggy Chiampas, Judge Presiding.

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Katie Anderson, State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Matthew Connors, and Hayden Dinges, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

PRESIDING JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant Steven Dixon appeals the trial court’s first stage dismissal of his pro se postconviction petition. He contends his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding bloodstain patterns without a sufficient foundation.

¶ 2 On October 13, 1991, 16-year-old Tiffany Lindsey was found beaten and stabbed to death inside her apartment located at 47th Street and Drexel Boulevard in Chicago. Defendant admitted he was with Lindsey that morning and told police an unknown individual entered the apartment and attacked them. No charges were filed in 1991 because DNA analysis was not available at that time. The tests conducted then were only for the presence of human blood. Following new DNA testing in 2009, defendant was arrested and charged with Lindsey’s murder. In April 2015, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder, and the trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to a term of 40 years in prison. We outline the evidence presented at defendant’s trial as necessary for our disposition of this appeal, A full discussion of the evidence presented at defendant’s trial was set forth in People v. Dixon, 2018 IL App (1st) 158211-U, 2018 WL 6843614.

¶ 3 In 1991, Lindsey was living in her own apartment with her one-year-old son Kendall. On October 11, 1991, Lindsey threw a party at her apartment for friends, including defendant, defendant’s sister Candice Hogans, defendant’s girlfriend Tameko Brown, and Tiffany Henderson Williams. Williams stayed at the party until around 3 or 4 a.m. on October 12. On the morning of October 18, 1991, Hogans saw defendant at their family home. Defendant looked shocked and had injuries on his chest and stomach. He told her that "someone came at him and [Lindsey]" and that someone should check on Lindsey. Hogans called Williams and Brown. Williams went to Lindsey’s apartment with her sister and found Lindsey’s back door was not closed or locked, which was unusual. She entered the apartment and saw Lindsey’s son covered in blood and then found Lindsey’s body. Williams described Lindsey’s face as "beat up really bad," and Lindsey was covered; there was "a sheet wrapped from her waist like to her heck." Williams’s sister tried to find a pulse but was unsuccessful. They exited the apartment with Kendall and told someone to call the police. Brown arrived at Lindsey’s building after the police had arrived. Both women identified a pair of, underwear discovered in Lindsey’s living room as belonging to defendant.

¶ 4 The police investigator testified that there were no signs of forced entry at Lindsey’s apartment. Several items were recovered near Lindsey’s body: a Phillips head screwdriver, a padlock, two blue knife handles without the blades, a knife blade, a Newport cigarette case, a bottle of Hennessey cognac, and a can of "Old English" malt liquor. The investigator also recovered a washrag from the floor near the kitchen sink and a second opened can of "Old English" from the kitchen table. Defendant’s clothing was recovered at the hospital.

¶ 5 Lieutenant Scott DeDore met with defendant at Mercy Hospital. The lieutenant observed scratches on defendant’s face. He informed defendant of his Miranda rights, and defendant agreed to speak with him. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

"Defendant told the lieutenant that he was sleeping on the floor of Lindsey’s apartment while Lindsey was sleeping on the couch. He woke up because ‘he heard screams and he felt he was being cut.’ He ‘jumped’ up, got dressed as he had only been wearing his pants, and fled the apartment. *** Defendant estimated this happened at approximately 7 a.m. When the lieutenant asked defendant if he called police or tried to help Lindsey, defendant responded that he was in shock and worried about himself. Lieutenant DeDore described defendant’s demeanor as ‘very calm.’ Defendant did not provide a description of the person who cut him. Defendant did not ask about Lindsey’s condition." Dixon, 2018 IL App (1st) 153211-U, ¶ 17.

¶ 6 A medical examiner testified about Lindsey’s 1991 autopsy report, which disclosed multiple blunt and sharp force injuries to her face, head, and neck, as well as a beaten body. A handle-less knife blade was protruding from Lindsey’s neck from left to right. The knife blade severed Lindsey’s carotid artery. Lindsey also had a displaced skull fracture on her right temple, which broke through the skull and bruised her brain. Her fingernails, clothing, and blood were collected as evidence. The medical examiner estimated that she would have stayed in motion for a matter of seconds up to possibly a minute or two after the neck wound was inflicted. A toxicology report indicated there was no evidence of drugs or alcohol in Lindsey’s system. A police investigator found three teeth on the carpet next to Lindsey’s body. Her hands were placed in bags to preserve any evidence under her fingernails.

¶ 7 In 2009, Detective Patrick Smith was assigned to investigate Lindsey’s murder as part of his work in the cold case unit. He was aware that some of the evidence had been submitted to Orchid Cellmark laboratory (Cellmark) for DNA testing. After he received the results from the DNA testing, Detective Smith attempted to locate defendant and subsequently collected a blood sample from defendant in October 2010.

¶ 8 Cellmark conducted the testing on the evidence with DNA samples from Lindsey, defendant, and Kendall. The DNA results disclosed the following:

"Samples of blood stains on living room carpet, window shade and the washrag: Single source DNA consistent with Lindsey

Padlock: Mixed profile, the major contributor profile was Lindsey, Kendall could not be excluded as to the minor profile. No conclusion could be reached as to defendant as a contributor

Cigarette box: Mixed profile consistent with mixture of Lindsey and Kendall. Defendant was excluded as a DNA contributor

Screwdriver shaft: Mixed profile consistent with mixture of Lindsey and Kendall. Defendant was excluded as a DNA contributor

Screwdriver handle: DNA profile consistent with Lindsey

Knife blade from living room floor: DNA profile consistent with Lindsey

Knife handle #1: DNA profile consistent with Lindsey

Knife handle #1 (nonblood area): Major profile consistent with Lindsey, minor consistent with Kendall. Defendant was excluded as DNA contributor

Knife handle #2 (nonblood area): Partial DNA profile was mixture of defendant and Lindsey, Kendall could not be excluded.

Fingernail clippings from Lindsey: Mixed profile, major profile consistent with Lindsey and partial profile consistent with defendant. Kendall was excluded.

Blood crusts from Lindsey’s fingernails: Partial predominant profile consistent with defendant

Cuttings from defendant’s sweatshirt hood, inside sweatshirt waistband, left jacket sleeve, right jacket sleeve, and inside front panel of jacket: DNA profile consistent with defendant

Cuttings from back of left leg of defendant’s jeans: Mixed profile, major full profile consistent with Lindsey, minor partial from unknown individual. No conclusion could be drawn as to defendant, Kendall was excluded

Cuttings from right front leg of defendant’s jeans: Single source DNA profile consistent with Lindsey

Cutting from defendant’s right shoe: Single source DNA profile consistent with Lindsey

Swab of defendant’s right hand: Mixed profile, major profile originated from Lindsey and defendant could notbe excluded as minor contributor. Kendall was excluded." Id. ¶ 23.

¶ 9 Investigator Thomas Merchie performed the blood spatter analysis on defendant’s clothing in early 2011. During voirdire, he testified that he was trained in blood pattern analysis with over 220 hours of specific training during his 24-year career as a crime scene investigator with the Illinois State Police and that he had previously testified as an expert in blood pattern analysis 10 to 12 times. He admitted that he did not have a science degree and had not published any papers or articles in the field. The court tendered Investigator Merchie as an expert in blood pattern stain analysis, and no objection was made on the record.

¶ 10 During his testimony, he opined that the blood drops on defendant’s right shoe came from the toe area and traveled toward the rear of the shoe. This opinion was based on the tail of the blood drop moving toward the back of the shoe. Investigator Merchie testified that defendant’s right shoe had over 100 bloodstains, but none of the stains were on the back of the shoe. Based on the size, number, and pattern of the bloodstains, he opined that the source of the blood was in front of where the shoe was pointed. The stains were not left by incidental contact, and the, size of the bloodstains, indicated a blunt force trauma. In comparison, defendant’s left shoe had fewer bloodstains, approximately 20 to 30 stains, and they were located on the top and the right side of the shoe.

¶ 11 Investigator Merchie also analyzed defendant’s jeans for blood spatter. He found more stains on the right leg than the left, and the majority of the stains were below the knee. He testified that the absorbency of the cloth distorted the stains at times because the spread in the...