People v. Mefford

44 N.E.3d 616

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Joshua J. MEFFORD, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 4–13–0471.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Dec. 3, 2015.

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Rebecca I. Levy (argued), all of State Appellate Defender's Office, Springfield, for appellant.

Brian Bower, State's Attorney, Charleston (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Kathy Shepard (argued), of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

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

¶ 1 Following a trial that ended in May 2013, a jury found defendant, Joshua J. Mefford, guilty of (1) first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(2) (West 2010)) and (2) robbery (720 ILCS 5/18–1(a) (West 2010)). Specifically, the jury determined that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant struck another person, Robert Montague, knowing that such an act created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm and, thereafter, robbed Montague of cash. In June 2013, the trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive prison terms of (1) 36 years for first degree murder and (2) 5 years for robbery.

¶ 2 Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first degree murder, (2) the trial court erred by failing to (a) ensure the jury was properly instructed and (b) prevent the jury from considering impermissible other crimes evidence, and (3) he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In September 2012, the State charged defendant with (1) one count of first degree murder (knowing) (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(2) (West 2010)) (count I), (2) one count of first degree murder (felony) (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(3) (West 2010)) (count II), and (3) robbery (720 ILCS 5/18–1(a) (West 2010)) (count III).

¶ 5 A. The Evidence Presented at Defendant's Trial

¶ 6 At defendant's jury trial, which occurred during April and May 2013, the parties presented the following evidence.

¶ 7 1. The State's Evidence

¶ 8 Mitchell Estep testified that from 2006 to 2012, he was a resident at the U.S. Grant motel (motel) in Mattoon, Illinois. During those years, Estep and Montague, another long-term resident of the motel, became close friends. Eventually, Montague became a motel employee. Estep explained that when the motel's owners would travel, Montague would rent rooms and receive payments, which he kept in a “blue money bag.”

¶ 9 On the afternoon of September 8, 2012, Estep waved to Montague, who was standing in front of the motel office talking to the motel owners before their planned trip. When Montague waved back, Estep—who estimated he was 70 feet away—did not notice anything unusual about Montague's face. The next day, at about 10:30 a.m., Estep went to Montague's room and noticed that his door was locked, which was unusual. After Estep's knocks went unanswered, another tenant manipulated the door lock and entered Montague's room, as did Estep. Estep then saw Montague, who “[l]ooked like he'd been beaten with a ball bat,” lying face up on the floor.

¶ 10 Dennis Camfield, a Mattoon fire department emergency medical technician, testified that on September 9, 2012, he responded to a request for assistance at the motel. Camfield saw Montague lying faceup on the motel room floor, with (1) dark “bluish-purple” discoloration of both eyes, (2) blood coming from his nose, and (3) pooling blood on the back side of his head. Camfield stated that Montague's injuries were indicators of a skull fracture. Camfield opined that it would have taken “significant trauma” to cause Montague's injuries.

¶ 11 Amanda Youmans, a board-certified forensic pathologist, testified that she performed Montague's autopsy by first conducting a comprehensive external examination of his nude body. Youmans documented that Montague was “a very thin, frail man,” who was 58 years old; 5 feet, 3 inches tall; and weighed 93 pounds. Youmans testified that Montague had the following external injuries: (1) bruising to the area around both eyes; (2) abrasions to his forehead, left temple, and chin; (3) a laceration that went through his upper lip; (4) lacerations to his lower lips; (5) the absence of two bottom teeth; (6) the displacement of the nose to the right, which was “consistent with trauma being inflicted to the left side of the nose,” (7) a laceration and bruise to the back of [his] head; (8) bruising on Montague's lower-back and upper-buttocks area, which was consistent with a backward fall; and (9) multiple contusions on the inner surface of the left arm, which indicated defensive injuries.

¶ 12 Youmans' internal examination revealed that Montague had a “hematoma,” which she described was a “significant amount of clotted blood,” on the right side of his head just under the scalp. After removing the blood, Youmans discovered skull fractures underlying the hematoma. Youmans' examination also revealed (1) “a lot of blood accumulation” and bruising over the right side of Montague's brain, (2) further skull fractures on the interior of Montague's skull, and (3) a skull fracture behind Montague's right eye caused by blunt force trauma.

¶ 13 Youmans explained that the blunt force trauma Montague suffered caused bleeding over and into the brain, which resulted in brain swelling. The increased pressure of a swelling brain confined within a skull—if left untreated—can cause a person to lapse into a coma and eventually cause death. Youmans opined to a “reasonable degree of professional certainty” that (1) Montague's internal and external injuries occurred about 12 hours before his death, (2) the cause of Montague's death was blunt force head trauma, (3) Montague received at least six blunt force trauma blows to the front of his face, (4) a head injury Montague suffered to the back of his skull was consistent with a “fall backward onto concrete,” and (5) with the exception of the trauma to the back of Montague's skull, his remaining injuries were consistent with strikes from a fist. Youmans clarified that the six blunt force trauma blows to Montague's face did not include the blunt force trauma Montague sustained to the back of his head by falling backward onto concrete. Toxicology testing revealed that Montague had a blood alcohol content of 0.06.

¶ 14 John McCain, a crime scene investigation supervisor with the Mattoon police department, testified about the method and manner he and a fellow police officer used to process the motel crime scene, which occurred during a continuous 10–hour period. McCain noted that behind the motel's office, he recovered (1) samples of several red stains and (2) two human teeth. McCain also recovered samples of red stains in the motel office, which led into the motel's bathroom. Based on his training and experience, McCain surmised that the red stains were human blood. During the investigation, police found (1) a blue money bag and (2) a set of motel keys wedged in the bed of a pickup truck, which was parked at the motel. McCain acknowledged that he did not find a trail of red stains from the office to Montague's room.

¶ 15 Forensic deoxyribonucleic acid testing performed by the Illinois State Police Springfield forensic science laboratory revealed that the samples police recovered from the red stains in (1) the motel office, (2) the sidewalk on the east side of the motel office, and (3) the motel office restroom area were Montague's blood.

¶ 16 Mattoon police detective Sam Gaines testified that he investigated Montague's death with the lead detective, Jeremy Clark. On September 9, 2012, Gaines received information regarding Montague from William Clodfelder, a long-term resident of the motel. (Clodfelder has since died.) Based on that information, Gaines and Clark located defendant in Windsor, Illinois. Thereafter, defendant agreed to an interview at the Mattoon police department regarding Montague's death. (A recording of the interview Clark conducted with defendant was played in its entirety for the jury.)

¶ 17 The recording showed that on September 9, 2012, at 6:36 p.m., defendant and Clark entered the interview room. Clark then asked defendant to empty his pockets. Defendant produced a lighter and $27, which Clark confiscated. During the interview, defendant—who was 25 years old—stated that on the previous night, he was drinking beers in Clodfelder's motel room. At about 10:30 p.m., defendant left and walked “around” the motel's property to “clear his head.” Defendant characterized his demeanor as not “falling over drunk,” but, instead, he “had a good buzz going.” Shortly thereafter, defendant encountered Montague—whom he had known since childhood—by the motel's front office. Defendant stated that as he approached, Montague mistook him for a person who had assaulted Montague weeks earlier. Montague, who defendant stated was very drunk, became aggressive.

¶ 18 After defendant identified himself, Montague calmed down and they began a conversation. However, defendant stated that “something clicked in [Montague's] head,” and he became aggressive again. As the confrontation escalated, defendant admitted that he overreacted and punched Montague once on the left side of his jaw, which caused Montague to fall “straight back, [landing] on his back with his hands up above his head.” After striking Montague, defendant stated that he “just walked away.”

¶ 19 Immediately thereafter, Clark expressed concern that defendant was not revealing the full extent of his involvement. Specifically, Clark told defendant, “[w]e need to talk about the money bag.” At first, defendant denied any knowledge, responding, “I don't know * * * anything about it.” Eventually, defendant acknowledged that (1) he had taken a blue money bag after Montague fell to the ground and (2) the bag contained $27, which Clark had earlier confiscated. Defendant asserted that although he did not intend to rob...