People v. Jackson

1

2023 IL App (4th) 220421-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY L. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-22-0421

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

April 19, 2023

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 Peoria County No. 18CF337 Honorable John P. Vespa, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Cavanagh and Zenoff concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

LANNERD, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: (1) The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress because defendant was not in custody before he was provided his Miranda warnings. (2) Defendant failed to establish the State committed a Brady violation. (3) Defendant failed to establish the trial court made a clear or obvious error in imposing a natural life sentence.

¶ 2 In June 2018, a grand jury indicted defendant, Anthony L Jackson, on four counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2018)) and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2018)). In March 2022, after a bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty on all charges. In May 2022, the court sentenced defendant to consecutive prison terms of natural life for first degree murder and six years for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) the court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the investigating police officers engaged in a "question first, warn later" custodial interrogation; (2) the State failed to identify and disclose material, exculpatory evidence in its possession to defendant's trial counsel; and (3) the court abused its discretion by imposing a natural life sentence on defendant. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In the early morning hours of June 7, 2018, the victim in this case, Timothy Jackson, was cut multiple times by defendant, requiring medical care at the local hospital. At 6:18 a.m., the victim texted his girlfriend, Danyelle Riley to tell her he was on his way home from the hospital. Approximately 10 minutes later, Riley heard gunshots outside her house. Riley saw a "bluish silver" vehicle driving away. Police officers arrived soon thereafter. The victim was deceased.

¶ 5 On June 19, 2018, a grand jury indicted defendant. According to the indictment, defendant killed the victim by shooting him with a handgun on or about June 7, 2018.

¶ 6 On August 18, 2021, citing section 114-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/114-11 (West 2018)), defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, alleging defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation at the police station on June 7, 2018, without being informed of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Defendant also filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence on April 11, 2019. However, only the motion to suppress filed on August 18, 2021, is at issue in this appeal.

¶ 7 According to the relevant motion, during his police station interview, defendant made statements to detectives about an altercation he had with the victim before the murder. After defendant made this statement, the detectives stopped the interview and informed defendant of his Miranda rights. After he was Mirandized, defendant continued speaking with the officers. Defendant's motion to suppress alleged the detectives deliberately used a two-stage interrogation technique to elicit incriminating statements from him.

¶ 8 On December 16, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant called Detective Matt Legaspi to testify. Legaspi testified he was a detective with the Peoria Police Department in June 2018 and worked on this case. On June 7, 2018, he met with defendant at the police station. Before meeting at the station, they spoke on the phone. Defendant had called the police station and asked if someone wanted to talk to him. The dispatcher connected defendant with Legaspi. Defendant told Legaspi he heard his uncle had been shot and killed, he had just been with his uncle, and he might have information on who was responsible. Legaspi told defendant the police were looking for any information they could obtain regarding the victim's death. Then, Legaspi offered to meet defendant somewhere or suggested defendant could come to the police station if defendant was willing to speak with the police.

¶ 9 When they spoke, defendant was the only person of interest in the case. Danyelle Riley had told Detective Scott Hulse that the victim said he and defendant had gotten into a fight and defendant cut him with a knife. Riley said the victim had to go to the hospital because of his wounds. However, defendant was not an actual suspect in the shooting at that time.

¶ 10 Defendant voluntarily came to the police station without any kind of police escort. Legaspi was notified defendant was at the station at 10:20 a.m. on June 7, 2018. At 11:27 a.m., defendant was escorted to an interview room and audio/video recording commenced. Legaspi and Detective Hulse came into the room around 11:29 a.m. According to Legaspi, he did not utilize any tactics during the interview with defendant and was with defendant for about an hour. Defendant was not handcuffed during the interview.

¶ 11 Legaspi stated he greeted defendant and thanked him for coming to the station. He believed defendant asked for a drink, which was provided. Detective Hulse and Legaspi then sat down to talk with defendant. Defendant was not Mirandized at the beginning of the interview. Legaspi said the door of the interview room was shut, but he suspected it was unlocked because it was department policy to leave interview rooms unlocked if a witness was inside. Witnesses were also allowed to keep their personal belongings. Legaspi indicated he thought defendant had his cell phone, shoes, and belt with him. According to Legaspi, when a person is a suspect, he or she is not allowed to keep those items during an interview for safety reasons. Legaspi noted defendant was even making calls from inside the interview room.

¶ 12 The detectives asked defendant what he wanted to talk to them about, and defendant responded that he might have some information about his uncle's death. Defendant then began talking to the officers about who he thought may have killed the victim. After defendant indicated he had been in an altercation with the victim before the murder, the officers informed him of his Miranda rights. Defendant chose to continue speaking with the police.

¶ 13 During its cross-examination of Legaspi, the State introduced the audio/video recording of defendant's interview. The recording showed defendant coming into the interview room. A little over 1 minute and 40 seconds later, the detectives entered the room. Approximately four minutes later, defendant made a comment that he and his uncle "got into it." At that point, the detectives began asking defendant for some basic information regarding his name, phone number, address, etc. About two and half minutes after defendant said he and his uncle "got into it," the detectives indicated the room was audio and video recorded and told defendant they wanted to inform him of his Miranda rights. They did so and asked defendant if he still wanted to talk to the detectives. His response is not entirely clear from the audio on the recording, but it sounds like he responded, "Of course." Defendant then continued to speak with the detectives.

¶ 14 After viewing the recording of defendant's interview, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress without explanation. On December 28, 2021, defendant filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its denial of the motion to suppress and for specific factual findings of whether the "interrogation" was custodial, whether the police used an intentional two-stage interrogation technique, whether Miranda warnings were required during the interview, and any other factual findings the court determined were necessary.

¶ 15 On December 29, 2021, at a hearing on defendant's motion to reconsider, the trial court indicated it was "stunned" the motion was filed. According to the court, the recording showed the conversation between the officers and defendant was nothing more than an innocent, casual conversation. The court found the detectives were not asking probing questions at the beginning of the interview. Further, the court concluded defendant was not in custody until after defendant indicated he and the victim got into an altercation before the murder. After defendant made the statement about the altercation, the officers asked defendant for his contact information and then Mirandized him.

¶ 16 The trial court found the earliest point in time when defendant was in custody was when he was Mirandized. Further, the court found the police did not use any two-step interrogation process to circumvent Miranda. The court then denied defendant's motion to reconsider.

¶ 17 On January 6, 2022, defendant waived his right to a jury trial.

¶ 18 Defendant does not make a sufficiency of the evidence argument on appeal, so an extensive recitation of the evidence presented at trial and arguments regarding that evidence is unnecessary. However, for context, a brief discussion of some of the trial evidence is relevant.

¶ 19 Danyelle Riley testified she was living with the victim who was her boyfriend, on June 7, 2018. The victim came home around 2 or 2:30 a.m. on June 7 and was preparing for bed when he received a phone call, which the victim said was from "Ant," who Riley knew was defendant. The victim told "Ant" he...