People v. Rosario

2021 IL App 190794-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMUEL ROSARIO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-19-0794

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

September 7, 2021

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 Sangamon County No. 17CF217 Honorable John M. Madonia, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Holder White and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

DeARMOND JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court granted the Office of the State Appellate Defender's motion to withdraw as appellate counsel and affirmed the trial court's judgment as no meritorious issues could be raised on appeal.

¶ 2 Defendant, Samuel Rosario, a Springfield police officer appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his motion for a new trial. On appeal, the Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) moves to withdraw as appellate counsel, asserting no meritorious issues can be raised on appeal. Defendant was given notice of OSAD's motion and an opportunity to respond and has not filed a response to OSAD's motion. For the following reasons, we grant OSAD's motion and affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. The State's Charges

¶ 5 In March 2017, the State charged defendant by information with one count of official misconduct (720 ILCS 5/33-3(b) (West 2016)) and two counts of battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3(a)(1), (2) (West 2016)).

¶ 6 B. Jury Trial

¶ 7 In August 2019, the matter proceeded to a jury trial. During jury selection, the trial court informed the prospective jurors of each of the legal principles contained in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012) also known as the Zehr admonishments (see People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472, 469 N.E.2d 1062 (1984)), while discussing the nature of the case, the parties and procedures involved in a jury trial, and general principles of law. After being sworn to answer questions, the jurors were asked about their knowledge of the parties or the case, prior jury service, and any reasons why they could not serve fairly and impartially. The prospective jurors were then asked individually whether they understood and accepted each of the four Zehr principles as they were recited one-by-one. Each prospective juror responded affirmatively. The defense did not object to the giving of the fourth principle informing jurors a defendant's election not to testify could not be used against him. Because of the unique nature of the case involving a police officer as the defendant, the court inquired, without objection, about possible biases of the jurors in that regard. The court gave the State and defendant the opportunity to question the potential jurors about any bias as well. Both the State and defendant exercised peremptory challenges and challenges for cause before deciding on the final jury, and no juror upon whom the defense expressed reservations served on defendant's jury.

¶ 8 At trial, Springfield police officer Orlando Manzanares testified he and defendant responded to "a criminal damage report" on February 27, 2017, at 2127 East Stewart Street in Springfield, Illinois. Defendant was the first officer to arrive. When Manzanares arrived at the scene, he observed defendant "in the front of the house speaking with several other subjects out front." Manzanares testified he asked defendant how he could assist and defendant instructed Manzanares to "go look for the suspect for the call." Upon returning to the residence, Manzanares "saw two males out front, and it appeared that they were clenched together." Manzanares recognized one of the males as defendant and "jumped out of [his] patrol vehicle and started running up to assist [defendant]." As he approached, Manzanares recalled defendant "stating something along the lines of he got it." Manzanares then "disengaged *** and stood by until [he] could step in for assistance." Manzanares further testified defendant and the other male, later identified as Robert Humes II, "ended up on the ground," at which point Manzanares "observed [defendant] strike Mr. Humes several times." While these events were occurring, Manzanares's body camera was on and operating. Manzanares identified the video footage as People's Exhibit No. 1 and stated the footage truly and accurately depicted the images of what he observed that day.

¶ 9 Earlene Humes testified she lived at 2127 East Stewart Street and had eight children, one of whom was Humes II. Humes testified she called the police on February 27, 2017, after one of her daughters "broke a glass table that was no longer in use." When defendant arrived at the scene, he began asking Humes questions before getting into an argument with Humes II, who was "scraping up the glass and stuff." According to Humes, defendant struck Humes II "more than ten times" after defendant "kept making threats to [her] son saying, son, you don't want these hands." Humes II "never touched the officer at all." Humes further testified that after Manzanares arrived, defendant "kept hitting [Humes II] randomly for no apparent reason" before "everything was closed out." Humes II "was never arrested."

¶ 10 The parties stipulated to the qualifications of Dr. Sandhya Kurian to testify as "an expert in the field of medicine." On March 3, 2017, Dr. Kurian treated Humes II while "working at Urgent Care for Memorial Hospital" in Springfield, Illinois. Dr. Kurian testified Humes II "came in with complaints of *** neck pain, upper back pain[, ] and lower back pain." Humes II informed Dr. Kurian "that a police officer had assaulted him a few days prior to his arrival at the Urgent Care." Although Dr. Kurian did not observe any "swelling or bruising," she testified Humes II's symptoms were consistent with the manner of injury he reported. Dr. Kurian explained Humes II "needed to have a CT scan" and "before his departure to the emergency room, [she] put a neck collar around his neck *** to stabilize the cervical spine," not based upon any medical observations, but upon the subjective complaints of the patient.

¶ 11 Wendall Banks testified he was the deputy chief of investigations with the Springfield Police Department (SPD) and previously held the positions of sergeant, detective, and patrol officer. As part of their duties, Banks stated patrol officers were authorized to perform official functions, such as responding to calls and making arrests. With regard to training, Banks explained new recruits were sent to "a state certified academy," before returning to SPD's academy, where they spend several weeks "going over our general orders, rules, [and] regulations." SPD's rules and regulations govern the conduct of a police officer. Banks further explained recruits and officers are "constantly critiqued and taught when they can and can't use force" and are expected to know the elements of most crimes they may encounter in the field, including battery, upon completion of their training.

¶ 12 Luke Satterlee, a master sergeant with the Illinois State Police, testified he received an assignment to investigate the incident on February 27, 2017, involving defendant and Humes II. Over the course of the investigation, Satterlee testified he photographed Humes II, who "had injuries on or about his face." Satterlee identified the photographs as People's Exhibit Nos. 6A through 6D. Satterlee also collected "radio traffic, *** body worn camera footage[, ] as well as any radio call logs or dispatch tickets that were submitted by SPD." Satterlee recalled defendant "being the primary officer assigned to the call" and testified defendant "closed the call with *** no contact made."

¶ 13 The State then called James Wolf, an investigator with the Illinois State Police, as an expert in the field of law enforcement use of force. Over the course of his career, Wolf testified he had investigated three shootings involving officers and conducted "additional reviews of use of force thousands of times." In addition, Wolf instructed recruits at the Illinois State Police Academy in control and arrest tactics, which Wolf explained, "would be used to take control of subjects or defend themselves against attacks or tactics to put people under arrest." Wolf also taught "a variety of classes including traffic stops, use of force, [and] domestic violence."

¶ 14 As part of his investigation, Wolf testified he reviewed SPD's policy regarding the use of force, body camera video footage of the incident, and defendant's training file. Wolf explained defendant would have received training in the use of force, which consisted of "a classroom setting where [defendant] would be provided information about use of force. And then *** scenario[-]based training as well as other classes they may touch on as well, control and arrest tactics being one of them." The State then presented Wolf with People's Exhibit No. 5, which Wolf identified as SPD's general order regarding the use of force. Wolf testified types of permissible force included verbal directions and "soft empty hand control pressure points *** against passive resistors." The order also permitted hard empty hand controls, such as strikes, punches, and kicks, "against persons showing active aggression against an officer by use of punches, kicks, [and] biting."

¶ 15 The State then played portions of People's Exhibit No 1 for the jury and asked Wolf to describe his conclusions regarding whether defendant's conduct conformed with SPD's policy on the use of force. After viewing People's Exhibit No. 1, Wolf stated defendant's taking of Humes II to the ground and the numerous" [h]ard arm" strikes against Humes II were not in...