People v. Gempel

48 N.E.3d 780

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.Bruce GEMPEL, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 3–14–0833.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Jan. 26, 2016.

James Glasgow, State's Attorney, Joliet (Justin A. Nicolosi, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

Michael J. Pelletier and Andrew J. Boyd, both of State Appellate Defender's Office, Ottawa, for appellee.

OPINION

Justice HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The State charged the defendant, Bruce Gempel, by indictment with two counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(1), (2) (West 2012)), residential arson (720 ILCS 5/20–1 (West 2012) ), and concealment of a homicidal death (720 ILCS 5/9–3.4(a) (West 2012)) in connection with the death of his neighbor, Dorothy Dumyahn.

¶ 2 During the pretrial motion stage, the defendant moved to suppress statements he made to police while in custody. Specifically, the defendant argued the police obtained his statements as a product of an illegal arrest. Following a hearing, the court granted the defendant's motion to suppress. In turn, the State requested an evidentiary hearing to establish the statements sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest to allow their admission at trial. The court allowed the State's request, but after hearing the evidence and arguments, found that the State failed to meet its burden in proving attenuation. Therefore, the circuit court barred the admission of the suppressed statements at the defendant's upcoming trial. The State filed a certificate of impairment.

¶ 3 FACTS

¶ 4 On the morning of November 18, 2012, an off-duty firefighter drove past the victim's home. The firefighter observed smoke coming from the home. He managed to enter through the front door, despite a chair blocking the door from the inside. Inside the home, the firefighter discovered a woman, identified later as the victim and neighbor of the defendant. It is later revealed that multiple stab wounds caused the victim's death, not the fire.

¶ 5 The police began their investigation by seeking interviews with individuals acquainted with the victim and her habits. Individuals of interest included the neighbors on each side of the home, which included Craig Gottwald and the defendant and his family. Also of interest to the police were the defendant's family's guest, Billy Norris, and the victim's regular acquaintance and friend, Rosella Hase.

¶ 6 On November 20, 2012, the defendant appeared voluntarily at the Romeoville police department for an interview with the police. The interview lasted approximately one hour. When the interview ended, the police arrested the defendant.

¶ 7 Following the arrest, the defendant remained in custody until November 22, 2012, at which time he made a recorded statement to the police. The defendant's statements in that recording are the subject of his motion to suppress and the State's later motion for an attenuation hearing. For clarity, we discuss the evidence adduced at each hearing separately.

¶ 8 I. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress

¶ 9 In his motion to suppress, the defendant alleged that the police illegally arrested him without probable cause or an arrest warrant when he voluntarily appeared at the Romeoville police department on November 20, 2012. Therefore, the defendant moved to bar the admission at trial of any statements he made while in police custody, because the police obtained those statements as the product of an illegal arrest. The parties presented the following evidence, organized chronologically, at the hearing on the motion.

¶ 10 A. November 18, 2012

¶ 11 Romeoville Police Commander Kenneth Kroll (a detective at the time of the homicide), testified that he responded to a police call-out at 2309 Caton Farm Road in Crest Hill on the morning of November 18, 2012. At the time, Kroll was a member of the Will County–Grundy County major crimes task force (task force) and had been called to investigate a homicide.

¶ 12 When Kroll arrived at the scene, he spoke with Crest Hill Police Detective Jason Opiola. Opiola told Kroll that an off-duty firefighter recovered the body of a deceased female from inside her burned home. The victim lived alone and had regular contact with her neighbors on both sides. Hase, the victim's friend, also had regular or daily contact with the victim. Opiola also told Kroll that he had spoken with the victim's daughter, who informed Opiola that the defendant borrowed money from the victim in the past. The victim's daughter had recently told the victim to stop lending money to the defendant.

¶ 13 After speaking with Opiola, Kroll viewed the scene himself. He observed the victim's body on the front lawn. He saw that the house had been very badly burned. He noted that the victim's body appeared to have significant injuries, not from the fire, but from what appeared to be stab and puncture wounds. According to Kroll, the stab wounds appeared defensive.

¶ 14 As Kroll viewed the scene, other investigators told him that the victim routinely blocked the front and back doors of her home with a chair after locking them. Based on their observations of the smoke trail inside the home and the absence of the chair blocking the back door, investigators believed the perpetrator knew the victim and had exited through the back door after starting the fire.

¶ 15 After viewing the scene, Kroll and members of the task force sought interviews with the victim's neighbors and friend who were present at the crime scene watching the police. This included the defendant's brother, William Gempel, the defendant's nephews, Jesse and Jacob Gempel, and the victim's friend, Hase. The Gempel family's overnight guest, Norris, was also present at the scene but was not interviewed by the task force. All individuals the task force interviewed provided voluntary buccal swab samples for testing.

¶ 16 Later that evening, William consented to a police search of his home (located next door to the victim's home).¹ Inside the residence, Kroll observed the defendant for the first time, sitting on a couch. Kroll noticed scratches on the defendant's face.

¶ 17 Detective William Sheehan, another task force member, testified that he met the defendant when police searched William's home. When he spoke with the defendant, Sheehan asked general background questions. During the conversation, the defendant mentioned that he had borrowed money from the victim in the past and it bothered the defendant when she asked for repayment. The defendant also asked Sheehan why somebody would do such a thing to the victim. Sheehan suggested that alcohol had been involved. Sheehan believed his remark made the defendant upset because the defendant had previously told Sheehan that he had been drinking the night before.

¶ 18 Like Kroll, Sheehan observed a scratch on the side of the defendant's face. Sheehan also observed a scratch on the defendant's nose and some marks and scratches on both the defendant's knees. Sheehan noticed additional scratches on the inside of the defendant's right elbow. The defendant also voluntarily provided a buccal swab sample for analysis.

¶ 19 Sheehan also spoke with the victim's friend, Hase. Hase told Sheehan that William would borrow money from the victim. She indicated that the defendant would also borrow money from the victim. Hase did not tell Sheehan that the defendant owed money to the victim at the time of her death nor was Hase aware of the defendant ever threatening the victim.

¶ 20 B. November 19, 2012

¶ 21 According to Opiola, an autopsy was performed on the victim, during which the pathologist collected the victim's fingernails and sent the samples to the Joliet crime lab for DNA analysis.

¶ 22 C. November 20, 2012

¶ 23 The next day, Sergeant Sean Talbot, another task force member, interviewed the defendant's nephew, Jacob. Jacob told Talbot that it was common for the defendant to borrow money from the victim. According to Jacob, the victim knew when the defendant received his paycheck and would wait for the defendant to return from work and ask for repayment. Since the homicide, Jacob noticed that the defendant had not been sleeping, had been pacing a lot, and had called in sick to work.

¶ 24 Later in the day, the defendant appeared voluntarily at the Romeoville police department for an interview with Detectives Sheehan and Matlock. Kroll did not attend the interview but was informed by the detectives that the defendant had been read and had asserted his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ). The video recording of the interview was not played for the circuit court at the suppression hearing.² Further, neither party offered evidence regarding the substance of the conversation between the defendant and the detectives during the interview.

¶ 25 When the interview finished, the police decided to arrest the defendant. Kroll personally escorted the defendant to the station's booking area, where Kroll took a photograph of the defendant, removed the defendant's personal belongings, and placed the defendant into a secure bullpen. When the police arrested the defendant, they had not identified any eyewitnesses, did not have a description of the possible offender, and had not obtained a warrant to arrest the defendant.

¶ 26 By stipulation, the parties agreed that the defendant remained in custody at the Romeoville police department until November 22, 2012 (approximately 37 hours). At the end of the 37 hours, the defendant made a recorded statement to the police.³

¶ 27 After the parties finished presenting their evidence and arguments, the circuit court granted the defendant's motion to suppress. In so ruling, the circuit court noted that the victim's habit of placing chairs at the front and back doors of her home did not connect the defendant to the back door where the police suspected the perpetrator exited. The circuit court also noted that while the officers...