People v. Johnson

1

2024 IL App (1st) 220419

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JASON JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-22-0419

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Third Division

June 5, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 03 CR 5227 Honorable Michael B. McHale, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys for Appellant: James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Benjamin Wimmer, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Attorneys for Appellee: Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Brian K. Hodes, and Erin K. Slattery, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices D.B. Walker and R. Van Tine concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

LAMPKIN, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Defendant Jason Johnson was convicted in 2009 of four counts of first degree murder and received a mandatory sentence of natural life imprisonment. In 2021, the circuit court dismissed his 2019 petition for postconviction relief at the second stage of proceedings under the PostConviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2018)).

¶ 2 On appeal, defendant argues he made a substantial showing that (1) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not supporting defendant's motion to suppress his 2003 statements to the police with evidence that two detectives had coerced confessions from suspects from 1985 to 1991 and 2000 to 2002, respectively, demonstrating a pattern and practice of coercing confessions from suspects, and (2) in the alternative, assuming that the aforesaid evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence prior to final judgment, then defendant's statements were coerced and their use violated his right against self-incrimination, and newly discovered evidence excuses res judicata and warrants reconsideration of his claim.

¶ 3 Although defendant's appellate brief also raises the claim that his natural life sentence violates the Illinois Constitution's proportionate penalties clause, he concedes in his reply brief that this claim is foreclosed by recent caselaw.

¶ 4 For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing under the third stage of the Act.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 On January 3, 2003, Prescott Perry, his daughter Sarah Perry, her boyfriend Ronald Ryals Sr., and the couple's two-year-old child Ronald Ryals Jr. were found shot to death inside their home located on South Michigan Avenue in Chicago. The Perry family's dog had also been shot and killed. During the investigation into the murders, defendant who was 18 years old at the time, spoke to law enforcement officials and made a series of statements in which he admitted to his role in the quadruple homicide alongside Emmanuel Phillips, who was defendant's longtime friend and the victims' neighbor. Following defendant's admission, he was charged with multiple counts of first degree murder, home invasion, armed robbery, and residential burglary.

¶ 7 A. Pretrial Proceedings

¶ 8 Following his arrest, defendant tried to suppress his inculpatory statements. First, he moved to quash his arrest, alleging that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and seeking to suppress all evidence obtained by the authorities as a direct or indirect result of his purportedly unlawful arrest, including his inculpatory statements. Second, he moved to suppress his inculpatory statements, which he alleged were the direct result of "physical, psychological and mental coercion illegally directed against" him by Chicago police officers. Specifically, defendant alleged that law enforcement officials handcuffed him to a wall, took away his coat and shoes, kept him in custody and deprived him of sleep for four days, and failed to provide him with an adequate amount of food during his time at the Area 2 police station. Defendant further alleged that three different law enforcement officers physically assaulted him and/or threatened to physically assault him. Specifically, he alleged that Detective Anthony Maslanka handcuffed and hit him at his house before taking him against his will to Area 2. He further alleged that Detective Maslanka threatened to "bust [his] s***" if defendant failed to cooperate. Later, at Area 2, Detective Maslanka allegedly "smacked" defendant in the face when he failed to answer a question. Defendant further alleged that another officer, Detective David Fidyk, punched, kicked, and choked defendant, displayed a firearm and insinuated that he could shoot defendant in the interview room, and showed him very disturbing photographs of the crime scene. Finally, defendant alleged that a third officer, whom he believed to be Sergeant Daniel Brannigan, threatened defendant with "physical violence" if he did not sign a court-reported inculpatory statement.

¶ 9 1. Motion to Quash Arrest Hearing

¶ 10 The trial court first presided over a hearing on defendant's motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence, which commenced in May 2007. The court heard evidence about the events that unfolded after the January 2003 quadruple homicide that led to defendant's initial encounter with police on February 6, 2003, and to the series of statements he provided in the days that followed.

¶ 11 The State's evidence showed that law enforcement officials commenced a large-scale investigation after the bodies of the four victims were discovered in their home. Although there were no immediate suspects, police found somewhat unusual ballistics evidence at the scene. Specifically, they observed a number of unique frosty-colored 9-millimeter shell casings throughout the residence instead of the more common silver or brass-colored casings.

¶ 12 A breakthrough in the case occurred on February 6, 2003, when police responded to a shooting at the bungalow located next door to where the four bodies had been found. Roosevelt Phillips, the Perry family's neighbor, had been shot and killed, and police noticed the same frosty-colored shell casings present at the scene. Police also discovered a note written by Roosevelt's son, Emmanuel, in which he claimed he was the individual responsible for his father's murder as well as the murders of his four next-door neighbors. Emannuel also professed an intent to kill himself in his letter. A manhunt for Emmanuel ensued, and his mother suggested that the authorities speak to defendant, whom she described as her son's "very close friend." She directed them to an apartment complex located on West 71st Street where defendant's mother lived.

¶ 13 Several officers, including Detective Richard Lombard, immediately went to that location and knocked on the door. When defendant's brother Jammel Johnson opened the door part way, the police pushed the door open and entered the apartment with their guns drawn. Jammel went to the police station, where the police asked him about defendant and Emmanuel. Jammel confirmed that his brother and Emmanuel were friends and told the officers that defendant was likely at their stepfather's house located on South Lowe Avenue. Detective Lombard and a team of officers relocated to that address. Upon their arrival, they observed a man running around inside the house. The officers believed that Emmanuel could be in the home and thus forced entry into the residence. Once inside, they encountered defendant on the second-floor landing. Detective Lombard handcuffed him and took him over to a couch.

¶ 14 According to the State's witnesses, Detective Lombard uncuffed defendant after ascertaining his identity and explained that they were looking for Emmanuel. Defendant indicated that he was afraid of Emmanuel and agreed to accompany police to Area 2 to help them locate him; however, defendant informed Detective Lombard that he wanted to leave his house in handcuffs so people did not think he was cooperating with the authorities. Accordingly, Detective Lombard handcuffed defendant and transported him to Area 2. Detective Lombard subsequently removed defendant's handcuffs when they arrived at the station. At that time, police had no reason to believe that defendant was involved in the quadruple homicide.

¶ 15 At Area 2, defendant spoke to a number of officers including Detectives John Bloore, Maslanka, and Fidyk. Detectives Bloore and Maslanka first interviewed defendant about 1 p.m. They did not provide defendant with Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) warnings at that time. During the conversation defendant acknowledged that he and Emmanuel were longtime friends and indicated that he had spoken to Emmanuel a week earlier and Emmanuel had confessed that he had killed four people. Emmanuel indicated that he wanted defendant to run away with him, but defendant declined, and Emmanuel then threatened to kill defendant and members of defendant's family. Defendant indicated that he was aware Emmanuel owned firearms and directed police to a hiding place in Emmanuel's room where he kept them. After police confirmed the hiding place, Detectives Bloore and Maslanka conducted a second interview with defendant about 5 p.m. At the outset of the interview, Detective Bloore advised defendant of his Miranda rights, which defendant waived. During the conversation, defendant was unable to provide a consistent account of his whereabouts on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. He also claimed that he had not been in contact with Emmanuel recently, but phone records contradicted his claims, which caused police to become "more suspicious" of him. They conversed on and off until about 11:30 p.m., at which point the detectives' shifts ended. Detective Bloore testified that while defendant was at Area 2 on ...