People v. Rodriguez

1

2022 IL App (1st) 181293-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-18-1293

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division

June 14, 2022

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 10 CR 22162 The Honorable Luciano Panici, Judge Presiding.

FITZGERALD SMITH, PRESIDING JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lavin and Cobbs concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

FITZGERALD SMITH, PRESIDING JUSTICE

HELD: Defendant's convictions affirmed where the evidence though primarily circumstantial, was sufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; the trial court did not err by allowing evidence of a prior incident between defendant and the victim and of information related to the victim's funeral; the trial court did not err in allowing evidence from defendant's credit report; the State's closing argument did not deny defendant a fair trial; a Frye hearing was not required for the admission of historical cell site analysis testimony; and there was no cumulative error warranting reversal and remand.

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant-appellant Norberto Rodriguez (defendant) was convicted of first-degree murder and concealment of a homicidal death. He was sentenced to 60 years for the murder convictions and 5 years for the concealment conviction, to run consecutively, for a total of 65 years in prison. He appeals, presenting six contentions for our review: (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court erroneously allowed inflammatory and prejudicial evidence to demonstrate that he had poor character; (3) the trial court erroneously allowed inadmissible hearsay evidence in the form a his credit report; (4) he was denied a fair trial as a result of the State's improper remarks during closing argument; (5) the trial court erred in allowing historical cell site analysis evidence without first conducting a Frye hearing; and (6) all these errors resulted in cumulative error. He asks that we reverse his conviction outright, or, alternatively, that we reverse and remand for a new trial, or, again alternatively, that we retain jurisdiction and remand for a Frye hearing on the general acceptance of historical cell site analysis. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Defendant was charged in connection with the murder of his wife, Irma Rodriguez, after her children reported her missing on the evening of May 31, 2009. The next day, police found Irma's body in the trunk of her car at 148th Street and Kilpatrick Avenue in Midlothian, three miles from the family home. There was a bullet hole in her shirt and blood visible on the back of her head, as well as blood stains on the trunk's carpet; she had been shot in the back and head. Her manner of death was homicide. Defendant was arrested in November 2010 at which time he was approximately six feet tall and weighed about 200 pounds.

¶ 4 Prior to trial, in anticipation of the admission into evidence of certain historical cell site analysis and testimony, defendant filed multiple motions. One was a motion in limine precluding the State from introducing evidence that on the night of Irma's disappearance defendant's cell phone "ping[ed]" off a cell tower located near where her body was found, arguing that this would unfairly prejudice him. The trial court denied the motion. Another of defendant's pretrial motions in this regard sought a Frye hearing on the admissibility of expert testimony, to be provided by FBI special agent Joseph Raschke, regarding the historical cell site analysis he performed in this case. Defendant argued such analysis was not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and pointed to a federal court case where agent Raschke's methodology had been found to be unreliable. The trial court denied this motion as well and declined to hold a Frye hearing, stating that the federal case was inapplicable due to the differing standards between federal and Illinois state law regarding the reliability and admissibility of evidence. The court further commented it had recently presided over a triple murder case "where the same issue was brought up, and [the same motion] was denied." The trial court declared that the proposed evidence is "an accepted scientific theory in the community; and, therefore, there need not be any Frye hearing to determine whether or not, because it's not novel, to determine whether or not it's admissible."

¶ 5 At trial, Monica Medina, Irma's daughter, testified that Irma married defendant when she (Monica) was very young. They lived together, along with defendant and Irma's son Gabriel (Monica's step-brother), in the family home in Oak Forest. In 2008, Monica, Irma and Gabriel moved out and lived with Irma's eldest son (Monica's brother), Martin Medina, Jr., in his apartment, as Irma separated from defendant. However, by early 2009, they moved back in with defendant and defendant's mother, Carmen (who was mentally disabled and could not be left alone), at the Oak Forest home. According to Monica, Irma and defendant fought almost every other day and there was much tension in the house, centered on defendant's concern that Irma would leave him. Monica testified that on the morning of May 31, 2009, Irma took Gabriel and her to church, out to lunch, and then dropped Monica off at Monica's boyfriend's house. Monica returned home at approximately 8:10 p.m. She entered through the garage by using a keypad and then through the service door inside the garage leading into the home. She knew Irma drove a white Pontiac Grand Am with the personalized license plate TIT A 6. That car was not in the garage when she returned home. However, Carmen's red Kia, which defendant drove, was in the garage. Monica went straight downstairs to study for her exams.

¶ 6 Monica testified that soon thereafter, she received a cell phone call from Gabriel asking her to open the service door. When she opened the door, Gabriel was standing in the garage holding Irma's purse, which Irma had been carrying that day; he asked Monica why Irma's purse was on the floor in the garage. They looked around and saw that Irma's sandals were also on the garage floor. At this point, Monica and Gabriel walked through the house. There were no broken windows or doors. However, they noticed that there was no one home except Carmen, who was alone and asleep in her room, and there was food on the stove in the kitchen. Monica and Gabriel each used their cell phones to call Irma's cell phone multiple times, but Irma did not answer and their calls went straight to her voicemail. Monica also called John Avolio, whom she knew was Irma's boyfriend, and then she called her own boyfriend with whom she had been earlier that day.

¶ 7 Monica further testified that about 45 minutes later, she saw defendant approaching the house. She and Gabriel locked the front glass storm door so defendant could not enter, but left the wooden door open so they could see him. They asked defendant where Irma was, and he responded that he did not know. They then asked him where he had been, and he responded that he had gone for a walk. Monica stated that in all the time she has known defendant, she has never known him to go for a walk. Monica averred that her boyfriend then arrived, whereupon she opened the door and pushed past defendant to get to her boyfriend's car. Gabriel followed, and they discussed the situation with Monica's boyfriend. While they were talking, defendant went over to the group and told them they should go to Irma's friend's house to see if she was there. Monica's boyfriend drove her and Gabriel to the general area where Monica remembered Irma's friend lived, but Monica did not know the exact address. They did not see Irma or her car in that area, and they continued unsuccessfully to reach Irma on her cell phone until they eventually returned home.

¶ 8 Finally, Monica testified briefly with respect to an incident that happened on October 17, 1997, when she was very young and living with Irma, defendant and Gabriel, who was a baby, in a home in Chicago. Monica recalled that Irma and defendant were in their bedroom with the door closed, arguing. The fighting escalated, whereupon Monica heard a loud noise and saw her mother run out of the bedroom and out the front door. Moments later, defendant came out of the bedroom and asked Monica which way Irma went. Audio of two 9-1-1 calls made on that date were published to the jury. Monica identified the voices on the calls as belonging to Irma and defendant. Monica averred that Irma can be heard stating that defendant, her husband, is a Chicago police officer and that he should go get the gun; Monica also averred that defendant can be heard saying, presumably to Irma, that she (Irma) is bleeding. Monica agreed that defendant was a Chicago police officer at that time, but he was no longer one after that incident. Monica did not know the circumstances of the argument and did not see the argument itself. Following police intervention and investigation, it was discovered that during that incident, defendant had shot Irma in the hand.

¶ 9 Gabriel corroborated much of Monica's testimony. He stated that when he, Monica and Irma moved back in with defendant in January 2009 after his parents' year-long separation, everything seemed normal at first, but soon defendant and Irma returned to their pattern of repeatedly arguing; they did not sleep in the same room and they did not do anything as a couple. On May 31, 2009, Irma took Monica and him to church,...