People v. Mathis

1

2024 IL App (1st) 211102

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEON MATHIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-21-1102

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division

September 30, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 13 CR 7906 Honorable Kenneth J. Wadas, Judge Presiding.

Attorneys for Appellant: Sharone R. Mitchell Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Abir Ahmed, Assistant Public Defender of counsel), for appellant.

Attorneys for Appellee: Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Paul E. Wojcicki, and Amy McGowan, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel) for the People.

HOWSE JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Ellis and Cobbs concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

HOWSE, JUSTICE

¶ 1 In January 2020, a jury found defendant, Deon Mathis, guilty of first degree murder of one victim and aggravated battery with a firearm of another victim on a theory of accountability for the actions of his brother, Joseph Mathis. This court affirmed Joseph Mathis's conviction in a separate appeal. People v. Mathis, 2022 IL App (1st) 211027-U. On appeal defendant raises several errors including the argument the trial court erred when it failed to suppress certain statements defendant made after detectives falsely promised him blanket confidentiality.

¶ 2 For the following reasons, we find the trial court erred when it failed to suppress statements defendant made after detectives made a promise of blanket confidentiality of anything defendant said to police. We find this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We also find the properly admitted evidence was sufficient to prove defendant's guilt of the offense charged. Accordingly, we reverse defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The State's prosecution of defendant Deon Mathis arises from the shooting death of Cometra Hollins and the shooting of Kenneth Edwards by defendant's brother, Joseph Mathis. We recounted the events surrounding the shooting in Joseph Mathis's appeal. Id. We begin by briefly summarizing the facts of the shooting and those additional facts necessary to provide context for defendant's appeal.

¶ 5 At approximately 11 a.m. on the morning of December 13 2011, Hollins and Edwards were shot while standing on a street corner. At 11:18 a.m. a person identifying himself as Hollins called 911 and said that "Joseph" shot him and that he was bleeding. Paramedics transported Hollins to the hospital, where he died later that day. Edwards survived and later identified Joseph Mathis as the shooter. Police later learned that defendant was involved in the shooting. On December 26, 2011, another police officer arrested defendant. The officer did not have a warrant but was aware that defendant was a suspect in the shooting in this case. Detectives interrogated defendant over the course of almost two days, resulting in an inculpatory statement by defendant.

¶ 6 Defendant filed a motion to quash his arrest and suppress his statements based on the allegedly illegal arrest without a warrant. The following facts were adduced at the hearing on defendant's motion to quash. On December 15, 2011, following a traffic stop, police arrested Marvin Jackson for possession of cannabis. Jackson informed the arresting officers that he had previously witnessed a murder. Two detectives interviewed Jackson that day. One of the detectives testified that Jackson told the detectives he saw Joseph Mathis in the vicinity of the shooting on December 13, 2011, and tried to speak to him but that Joseph rebuffed him. Jackson saw a gray car with "rims" nearby. The detective testified that Jackson told him the car belonged to defendant, Joseph's brother.

¶ 7 After Jackson tried to speak to Joseph, Jackson went to a local store then drove in the direction of Keeler Avenue and Wilcox Street in Chicago. Jackson saw the same gray car in front of him. The gray car parked near the intersection of Keeler Avenue and Wilcox Street, and Jackson parked several feet behind it, where Jackson sat for several minutes. At some point, Jackson saw Hollins in a group of people approach the intersection. Jackson saw Joseph exit the vehicle, walk toward the intersection, take out a gun, and start firing. Defendant then drove the vehicle to the intersection and opened the passenger door. Joseph got in, and defendant drove away. That same day Jackson identified defendant and Joseph as the driver and shooter from photo arrays. The detectives were also aware that, the night before the shooting in this case, defendant and Joseph's relative had been killed in the vicinity of this shooting.

¶ 8 The trial court denied defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress statements. Defendant subsequently filed a separate amended motion to suppress statements on the grounds defendant did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and, regardless, defendant's statement was involuntary. Defendant supported both grounds for relief by arguing that police interrogated defendant for over 38 hours during which police used coercive tactics, defendant has an IQ below 70, and he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

¶ 9 Two experts offered opinions on defendant and the interrogation at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. For the defense, Dr. Jean Leska opined defendant was unable to knowingly waive his Miranda rights. For the State, Dr. Susan Messina opined defendant was capable of giving a valid waiver of his Miranda rights.

¶ 10 The allegedly coercive tactics police employed included repeated interrogations over two days, sleep deprivation due to leaving the lights in the interrogation room on, denying defendant's request to make a phone call, and a false promise allegedly saying that defendant's statements to the detectives would not be shared with anyone else. As to the false promise, after over 38 hours in custody and being subject to repeated interrogations, detectives told defendant that everything defendant said would stay between the three of them. A detective testified they made that statement in response to defendant's concern that people in defendant's neighborhood would learn defendant gave a statement to police. The detective testified he meant only that no one from the neighborhood would find out, not that the statements would not be used against defendant.

¶ 11 The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress.

¶ 12 During the voir dire of the jury venire, the trial judge asked the potential jurors whether they "agree and accept" each of the Zehr principles. See People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 (1984). The State concedes the trial judge did not ask any potential jurors whether they "understood" these principles of law.

¶ 13 The trial court tried defendant and Joseph Mathis in simultaneous separate jury trials. Marvin Jackson testified at defendant's trial. Jackson generally testified consistently with the evidence adduced at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. Specifically, Jackson testified that, when he went to a local drive through convenience store, he saw defendant driving the gray car with Joseph in the passenger seat. Jackson testified that Joseph usually drove that car. Jackson also testified that, after police arrested defendant and Joseph, Jackson identified them both in photos and later in physical lineups. On cross-examination, Jackson added that he had never seen defendant drive before. The gray car was already stopped when Jackson parked his car, and Jackson could not see the driver's face. He did not know if anyone got out of the driver's seat after the car parked. Jackson did, however, have a clear view of defendant driving the car when Jackson was at the convenience store.

¶ 14 The trial court admitted video recordings of defendant's interrogation into evidence. A detective testified that during defendant's interrogation defendant was allowed to sleep and use the washroom and was given food. When not being questioned, defendant laughed at apparently nothing and sang. During questioning defendant initially denied any involvement or knowledge of the shooting.

¶ 15 During the relevant portion of defendant's interrogation that was played for the jury, one of the detectives begins by telling defendant that defendant properly responded to the killing of his cousin (defendant "took care of business"). Defendant's response is unclear. Later, defendant acknowledged the perception of Joseph's role in the shooting in this case. Defendant did not affirmatively agree that Joseph committed the shooting (replying to the detective, "If you say he did"), denied knowing what type of gun was used, and did not affirmatively agree that a gun was even used.

¶ 16 Later, defendant admitted seeing Joseph shoot. The detective told defendant he (the detective) would have done the same thing (shoot those responsible) in response to his own cousin being shot. Defendant then denied going anywhere with Joseph after the shooting or knowing that Joseph shot anyone. Defendant agreed with the detective that defendant had "heard" that, after defendant's cousin was killed, the person who killed defendant's cousin was shot and killed. But defendant denied knowing that Joseph shot the person who killed their cousin and three other people (saying, "I don't know about that"). The detective asserted that defendant had already told the detective that information, but defendant denied knowledge of it.

¶ 17 The detective asked defendant why defendant could not tell him what happened. The detective asserted that defendant was afraid of the truth. At this point, the second detective told defendant, ...