People v. Muren

2019 IL App (2d) 170243-U

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GRANT VAN MUREN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-17-0243-U

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

May 7, 2019

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County.

No. 14-CF-141

Honorable Brian F. Telander, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE HUDSON delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Birkett and Justice McLaren concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The evidence was sufficient to disprove defendant's claim of self-defense; State had no duty to preserve evidence that was not in its possession; defendant did not make a clear request to represent himself; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for residential arson and aggravated arson; and trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering movie clip, and, if it did, any error was harmless.

¶ 2 I. INTRODUCTION

¶ 3 Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Du Page County, defendant, Grant Van Muren, was convicted of second degree murder, residential arson, and aggravated arson (the latter two counts merged). Additionally, defendant was acquitted of robbery and concealing a homicidal death. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the State failed to disprove his self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt; that a due process violation occurred when an alleged misrepresentation by a police officer caused the loss of potentially exculpatory evidence; that the trial court ignored his request to represent himself; that he was not proven guilty of either arson charge beyond a reasonable doubt; and that the trial court erred by allowing the admission of evidence concerning a popular movie (one of the Bourne movies) as it pertained to defendant's mental state. We affirm.

¶ 4 II. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Charles V. Clark (the victim or the decedent) was found dead in his Naperville home on January 22, 2014. The following evidence was adduced at trial. The State first called Sergeant Anthony Mannino, of the Naperville Police Department. On January 22, 2014, he was dispatched to 1148 Vail Court to assist the fire department with a gas leak. He arrived at about 10:35 a.m. There were three individuals in the area. At this address was a residence that was part of a town-house complex. It had two stories and an attached garage. When he arrived he was advised that there was an unconscious individual—possibly deceased—inside. Mannino entered the garage and noted the odor of natural gas. As he approached the door to the townhouse, the odor grew stronger. Mannino proceeded upstairs. At the top of the stairs was a loft and an open door led to a bedroom. In the bedroom, he observed "a male subject lying facedown or on his belly." Mannino checked for a pulse and found none. While waiting for other personnel to arrive, Mannino noted a gold chain on a sofa in the loft area and a "folded sandwich table type of TV tray sort of thing on the couch also." There was a computer area in the loft. Mannino also saw an "ashtray upside down" and "a folding knife under a chair." Acloset door had been pushed off its track. Some items near the base of the door "appeared to have red stains." There was blood around the male subject.

¶ 6 Mannino testified that he went downstairs to the kitchen. There, he observed that the oven door was open and there were papers inside the oven. On a counter to the right of the oven was a toaster. It appeared that someone had burnt something—possibly paper or paper towels—in the toaster. The cabinetry above the toaster was burnt as well.

¶ 7 On cross-examination, Mannino testified that despite the smell of gas when he arrived, the fire department did not tell him to evacuate the premises. The deceased was not wearing a shirt, shoes, or socks. He was wearing shorts, which were pulled down in the back, and blue underwear. A television in the loft was on when Mannino arrived.

¶ 8 Steven Barr testified that he and his girlfriend shared an apartment with defendant in 2013. After living together about 30 days, on June 6, 2013, Barr returned from work one night to encounter defendant at the front door of the apartment. Defendant was "fairly intoxicated." He was "touchy feely" and wanted to put his arm around Barr. He was trying to be "buddy buddy" with Barr. Barr "wanted to just decompress" from work and retreated to his office. Defendant attempted to follow. Defendant attempted to engage Barr in a conversation about Barr's relationship with his girlfriend. Barr told defendant to leave his office. Defendant reentered the office several times. Defendant then tried to force the door open and grab Barr and was eventually successful. Barr's girlfriend came out of her room. The altercation continued and started to get loud. Defendant tried to call 911, saying that Barr assaulted him. The police came, told everyone to stay in their own rooms, and left. Before the police got back to their car, defendant was out of his room, "trying to harass" Barr and his girlfriend again. Barr went outside and got the police. They returned, and defendant got combative with them. The policetook defendant away. Defendant returned later that night, and Barr permitted him to go into his room. The next morning, defendant left and Barr changed the locks. He also obtained an order of protection against defendant. Defendant returned that evening with the police to remove his belongings from the apartment.

¶ 9 Irene Clark testified that she was married to the victim in 1992. They separated initially in 2001 and finally in 2004. She described the victim as "friendly," "free hearted," and "very giving." The victim was "peaceful" when he was with her.

¶ 10 Krystal Parks testified that she was tending bar on the night of January 21, 2014. Parks identified defendant and stated that he came into the bar where she was working that evening. Defendant asked for an energy drink. Parks noted "marks" on defendant's face. Defendant paid with a twenty-dollar bill that had wet blood on it. Parks asked defendant if he had other money to pay with, and he said no. Defendant sat at a table and was soon joined by a "younger guy." They came to the bar, and defendant ordered another energy drink while his companion requested a Bloody Mary. Defendant attempted to pay with another bloody twenty-dollar bill. Parks again asked defendant if he had a different way to pay. Defendant opened his wallet and looked through it. He then said that he did not. Parks observed that there was blood on the wallet and on bills inside it. She added that it was a "nice stack" of money. Defendant and his companion left between midnight and 1 a.m., after asking if there were any other open bars in the area.

¶ 11 On cross-examination, Parks testified that the bar was "[n]ot too crowded" that night. She acknowledged that when initially questioned by the police, she said that she did not recall defendant being in her bar. She explained that she "was not sure who [the officer] was talking about." After she learned defendant's name, she searched for it on the Internet. She"immediately recognized" defendant's picture and called the officer back. While defendant was at the bar, he did not appear intoxicated, was not disruptive, and never consumed alcohol. Defendant's eye was swollen, which appeared to be a fresh wound. The Naperville Police never attempted to collect the bloody money. On cross-examination, she clarified that her initial interaction with the police was by telephone and she was given a description of defendant that she did not recognize. She did not recall defendant until she saw his picture and then remembered him because of the bloody money.

¶ 12 Lieutenant William Kostelny of the Naperville Fire Department next testified for the State. Kostelny testified that he had responded to calls involving gas leaks hundreds of times. He was dispatched to 1148 Vail Court in Naperville, arriving at about 10:30 a.m. on January 22, 2014. The call was for a possible gas leak. On the way to the location, they calibrated gas detection devices. When they arrived, they encountered three individuals in the driveway. One said that gas had been coming from the stove, as a valve had been left open, but it was now closed. Kostelny went in to confirm that the valve was closed. He noted a strong odor of natural gas. He was aware that a police officer was already inside and sent one of his crew, Scott Bostrom, to check the gas level. The residence was a two-story unit that was attached to other units on either side. A gas meter indicated that the gas level on the first floor was 1.7 percent, which was below an explosive range. No carbon monoxide was detected. Bostrom checked upstairs and found the level to be 6.1 percent, which was in the explosive range. Any ignition source could ignite it, including a fire in a toaster. Kostelny noted that the oven in the kitchen was open and there were papers inside of it. There were also papers in a toaster that appeared to have been burned. The oven was on, set at 235 degrees. The cabinet above the toaster was "disfigured" and "the lacquer that was on it was burned through." Kostelny opined that heatfrom the toaster would have partially ignited the cabinet. The damage he observed was not caused by smoke alone. The firefighters opened windows on the second floor and used a fan to blow fresh air in though the front door in order to ventilate the residence and allow work to continue inside of it. Bostrom placed four heart monitor leads on the individual lying face down in the bedroom. They indicated that the person "was flatlined."

¶ 13 On cross-examination, Kostelny testified that he never directed the police officer present in the residence to leave due to the level of gas inside. He clarified that it was the oven, rather than the stove, that was on—that is, "[t]he lower part...