People v. Luellen

2019 IL App (1st) 172019

145 N.E.3d 623

438 Ill.Dec. 87

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

v.Larry LUELLEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-17-2019

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

Opinion filed November 25, 2019

Steven L. Richards, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Annette Collins, and Janet C. Mahoney, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 A jury found Larry Luellen guilty of first degree murder for the shooting death of Frances Colon. The State's principal witness, Bilal Sulieman, testified that he came to court in the custody of the Cook County Sheriff because he had ignored the subpoena for his attendance out of fear of Luellen. After Sulieman's testimony, the jury sent the judge three notes expressing fear for their own safety. Luellen moved for a mistrial, and after individually questioning the jurors, the trial court excused one juror for cause and denied Luellen's motion. The trial court sentenced Luellen to 75 years' imprisonment.

¶ 2 On appeal, Luellen raises three arguments: (i) the trial court erred by denying Luellen's motion for a mistrial and by inadequately inquiring into a series of jury notes, which suggest that the jury had begun discussing the case prematurely; (ii) the trial court erred by overruling objections to the State's successful attempt to elicit evidence that Sulieman feared Luellen and his friends; and (iii) regardless of any trial error, the State failed to prove Luellen guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt because Sulieman, the only witness to identify Luellen, was not a reliable witness.

¶ 3 We disagree with all of Luellen's arguments and affirm. The jury's notes did not jeopardize Sulieman's right to a fair trial. Even had there been evidence of some premature deliberation, the trial court took adequate measures to protect against any bias potentially caused by Sulieman's testimony that he feared Luellen.

Next, the substance of Sulieman's testimony about his fear of Luellen explains his appearance in a Cook County Department of Corrections uniform, particularly where Luellen's counsel made a pointed comment about Sulieman's initial failure to appear in opening statements. Finally, Sulieman, who knew Luellen for years, saw his face twice from a close distance in lit conditions, allowing him to make a credible identification.

¶ 4 Background

¶ 5 Faras Abdelhadi was working at his uncle's liquor store, when he went to get something to eat. As he walked, he saw an argument taking place in front of DJ's restaurant. Abdelhadi recognized the two men involved in the argument as "Boo" (Luellen) and "T-Y" (Darius Hammond). Abdelhadi stood about two feet away from Luellen and Hammond. In the time that Abdelhadi observed the argument, he did not hear either man threaten to kill anyone or see either with a weapon. Abdelhadi disclosed that he had an issue with his left eye, which affected his ability to see long distances and to obtain a driver's license.

¶ 6 Abdelhadi knew Luellen because Luellen worked at the barbershop that Abdelhadi used to frequent. Abdelhadi also saw Luellen around the neighborhood about every other day for the past five to six years.

¶ 7 Abdelhadi knew Hammond as a customer of his uncle's liquor store. Abdelhadi saw Hammond every other day for the past 8 to 10 years.

¶ 8 About 10 to 15 minutes after Abdelhadi returned to the liquor store, he heard gunshots. Abdelhadi learned that someone had been shot.

¶ 9 A few days later, detectives asked Abdelhadi to view a photo lineup and showed Abdelhadi a group of six photographs, from which he recognized and identified Luellen. Shortly afterwards, Abdelhadi returned to the police station, where detectives showed him another group of six photographs, from which he recognized and identified Hammond.

¶ 10 Following Abdelhadi's testimony, the trial court instructed the jury to "not discuss the case amongst yourselves or anyone else. Do not let anyone discuss it with you."

¶ 11 The State then called Bilal Sulieman. Defense counsel had warned the jury in opening statements that "there is one witness in this case, a witness who had to be arrested and is going to come out in Cook County Department of Corrections clothing, and here — and his name is Bilal Sulieman, write it down and hold me to it." At the time Sulieman testified, he was in the custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections for ignoring a subpoena to appear at the trial. The State asked Sulieman to tell the jury why he was in custody. Sulieman explained that he had failed to obey the subpoena. The State then asked why he did not come to court, and Sulieman responded, "I was just scared of testifying against the defendant because they know where I was working at." Luellen's counsel objected to Sulieman's characterization "they know" unless Sulieman could provide a basis for that concern. The trial court sustained counsel's objection.

¶ 12 Sulieman had worked at his brother's cell phone and clothing store for about two years. He continued working there until around 2015. He knew Luellen as a customer and saw him two to three times a week.

¶ 13 The State then asked, "And you indicated that you were scared to come to court, correct?" Sulieman began to respond when defense counsel objected. The trial court overruled the objection, and Sulieman finished answering that "[Luellen] and his friends all knew that I worked over there, so I didn't want it to come back that I was the one talking and coming to the store and doing something to me."

¶ 14 Sulieman also knew Hammond. For three to four months before the shooting, Hammond would visit the store two to three times a week.

¶ 15 On the evening of the shooting, Sulieman walked outside the store to smoke a cigarette. Within 30 seconds, he saw Hammond run past him, and Luellen follow 5 to 10 steps behind. They were running from the direction of DJ's Restaurant. When Hammond and Luellen first ran past Sulieman, they were both less than two to three feet away from him. Hammond wore a gray hoody, had nothing covering his face, and had nothing in his hands. Luellen wore a black hoody and had his right hand in the hoody's pocket holding onto something.

¶ 16 As Hammond ran diagonally across the street, Sulieman saw Luellen stop running in front of a park, pull his right hand out of the pocket of the hoody, and point his arm in Hammond's direction. As Sulieman saw Luellen with his arm outstretched, he heard five to seven gunshots. Sulieman could not see Luellen's hand or the flash of a gun because, when he heard the shots, Luellen had his back toward him. Sulieman did not see anyone else with a handgun or a weapon.

¶ 17 After Sulieman heard the gunshots, Luellen turned around, ran back to where he came from, and, as he passed Sulieman, slowed down and looked right at him. Sulieman saw Luellen's face; two to three feet separated them. Sulieman explained that although it was dark, business lights, streetlights, and car lights lit the busy intersection so that there was "still a lot of light out there. You could still see." Sulieman had been outside for 30 seconds before he saw Luellen and Hammond running. The time from when he first saw Luellen and Hammond until they were out of his sight unfolded in about two to three minutes.

¶ 18 Days afterwards, Detectives Anthony Green and Michael Landando questioned Sulieman about the night of the shooting. Sulieman reviewed and signed a photo lineup advisory form. The detectives showed Sulieman a photo array of six individuals. Sulieman identified Luellen.

¶ 19 Sulieman also met with Detectives Green and Timothy O'Brien at the Area North Chicago police station. Before viewing a lineup of five people, Sulieman reviewed and signed a lineup advisory form. Sulieman identified Luellen as the shooter. Sulieman then spoke to Assistant State's Attorney Jackie Lantz. She showed Sulieman two photos. Sulieman again identified Luellen and identified Hammond as the person at whom Luellen was aiming.

¶ 20 At trial, the State played video footage for the jury from a police camera on a traffic light that showed Luellen running after Hammond from Division Street down Pulaski Road. The record does not contain the video.

¶ 21 When Sulieman finished testifying, the trial court took a break and instructed the jury, "Do not discuss the case amongst yourselves or anyone else. Don't let anyone else — don't discuss this case with anyone, don't let anyone discuss it with you."

¶ 22 Shortly thereafter, the deputy delivered to the judge a note from the jury. The judge read the note into the record: "If the primary witness is so scared to testify that he dismissed the subpoena, what are the safety concerns for us? We are concerned." The trial court noted, "It's not signed, it doesn't say which juror wrote this or how many jurors ascribe to this feeling, but this is what they wrote."

¶ 23 The State took no position on the note. Luellen's counsel suggested three alternatives: (i) tell the jurors that neither party had the juror's addresses, no one can access the jury cards, and their safety is assured by all the means that the court can take; (ii) conduct individual voir dire to determine which juror wrote the note, whether each juror shares the concern, and whether the concern prevents the jurors from giving both sides a fair and impartial trial; or (iii) strike all of the testimony about Sulieman's fears.

¶ 24 The trial court declined to conduct an individual voir dire so as not to single out an individual juror. Instead, the court brought out the jury and explained that the trial court possessed the juror cards and the information on the cards is not shared with anyone. The court assured the jurors of the paramountcy of their safety and asked them to raise their hands if they felt they could not give both sides a fair trial. No...