People v. Ross

2018 IL App (2d) 161079

110 N.E.3d 284

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.William J. ROSS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 2–16–1079

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Opinion filed June 28, 2018

Douglas H. Johnson and Nicholas Curran, of Kathleen T. Zellner & Associates, P.C., of Downers Grove, for appellant.

Patrick D. Kenneally, State’s Attorney, of Woodstock (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and David A. Bernhard, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court.

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant, William J. Ross, was found guilty of first-degree murder and of having discharged a firearm that caused the death of Jacqueline Schaefer. 720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(2) (West 2014); 730 ILCS 5/5–8–1(d)(iii) (West 2014). The trial court sentenced defendant to 24 years' imprisonment for first-degree murder and a consecutive 25 years' imprisonment for the use of a firearm, for a total of 49 years' imprisonment (plus 3 years' mandatory supervised release (MSR) ). Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain statements to police, where he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights; (2) the court erred in admitting evidence of his prior alleged abuse of Schaefer; (3) the court erred in admitting evidence of defendant's ownership of firearms; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On August 13, 2014, the State charged defendant, then age 63, with one count of first-degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(2) (West 2014) ), alleging that, sometime in 2012, he shot Schaefer with a gun, thereby causing her death. Schaefer's body had been found on November 6, 2013, in her bedroom at defendant's residence at 518 North Country Club Drive in McHenry, in a state of advanced decomposition. Renee Bitton, defendant's friend, his former girlfriend, and the property's caretaker (defendant was away on a cross-country trip at this time), discovered the body after she gained access to the room. The door to the room was screwed shut. The screws were covered with caulk and duct tape, which were covered with trim and brown paint. No gun or bullets were recovered at the scene.

¶ 4 In June 2012, defendant had left McHenry and gone on a cross-country road trip, which continued until November 7, 2013, when he was arrested by local police in Las Vegas (on a failure-to-appear warrant for a traffic ticket).

¶ 5 A. Defendant's Motion to Suppress His Statements to McHenry County Sheriff's Detectives

¶ 6 Prior to trial, defendant filed two motions to suppress statements. One motion was directed at a statement he made to Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers after he was arrested in Las Vegas. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress the statement, but the State did not seek at trial to introduce any portion of the interview.

¶ 7 In the second motion, which is at issue in this appeal and was filed on August 19, 2015, defendant moved to suppress certain statements he made on November 9, 2013, to McHenry County sheriff's detectives in Las Vegas. (The interrogation was videotaped.) As relevant here, defendant alleged that his (oral) waiver of his Miranda rights was not intelligently and knowingly made, because he did not understand the nature of the rights he was waiving or the consequences of his decision.

¶ 8 The State conceded that defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation. However, it argued that defendant's educational background (he attended Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicago, and he obtained a master's degree in business administration (MBA) from DePaul University) and work experience (as product and sales manager and sales engineer for a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) company) showed that he understood his rights and was not coerced.

¶ 9 A videotape and transcript of the interrogation, which was conducted by detectives Thomas Jonites and Ed Maldonado, reflect the following. At the commencement of the interview, defendant, an alcoholic who was in a wheelchair and whose thumbs were shaking, stated that he was innocent. Detective Jonites announced that he had to read defendant his rights and asked defendant if he had been read his Miranda rights on any prior occasion.¹ Defendant replied that he "kn[e]w what they are." Detective Jonites stated that he would read them to defendant, and defendant replied, "They are confusing." The exchange continued:

"DETECTIVE JONITES: Okay. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, if you wish. You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements, okay? Do you understand them, Bill?

[DEFENDANT]: No.

DETECTIVE JONITES: What don't you understand about them?

[DEFENDANT]: How much do you have to have to hire a lawyer?

DETECTIVE JONITES: I don't know, Bill. I'm—you know, I'm not an attorney. I'm a police officer. So I don't know what the going rate on an attorney is nowadays.

[DEFENDANT]: And the other one about can and will be held against you.

DETECTIVE JONITES: It says anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

[DEFENDANT]: Well, if you say something that helps you, that could be used to help you in a court of law.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Not in a court of law necessarily but just to help you. Do you understand that?

[DEFENDANT]: Pretty much.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Okay. All right. Could you do me a favor and sign here indicating that I read them to you? And I'm going to write my name right here for you in case you forget. It's Tom Jonites. Right there. Right by the X. You can go ahead and read them again if you would like.

[DEFENDANT]: I said I know.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead—

[DEFENDANT]: I said I don't know.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Okay. Go ahead and sign them.

[DEFENDANT]: No.

DETECTIVE JONITES: You don't? You wrote no?

[DEFENDANT]: Yeah, because you gave me a right that said that I can and will be held against you. You didn't say to handle it for you.

DETECTIVE JONITES: And what?

[DEFENDANT]: Can be handled for you by a lawyer of law or—

DETECTIVE JONITES: Yes, I did. I said right here if you—you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned.

[DEFENDANT]: That's not what I'm saying.

DETECTIVE JONITES: And then I said if you could not afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you.

[DEFENDANT]: That's not what I said.

DETECTIVE JONITES: What did you say, Bill?

[DEFENDANT]: You said anything you say can and will be held against you. I can't agree with that.

DETECTIVE JONITES: It says can and will be used against you in a court of law. Anything you say that—you know, what—it's just saying that it could be used in a court of law.

[DEFENDANT]: It says it could be used against you, it says.

DETECTIVE JONITES: No, it says it can and will be used against you. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. But like if you give us information about a perpetrator in this, we can use that in a court of law.

[DEFENDANT]: Uh-huh.

DETECTIVE JONITES: And I'm not clear on what you are not understanding, Bill. Do you understand your rights, Bill? I mean—

[DEFENDANT]: No.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Okay. What don't you understand, Bill?

[DEFENDANT]: None of it.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Okay. Is there a certain part you don't have the—

[DEFENDANT]: Well, I'll re-read them again.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Okay. Well, just read them and as you are reading them if there is something you don't understand, Bill, just let me know.

[DEFENDANT]: I understand one.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Okay.

[DEFENDANT]: I don't understand two. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present while you are being questioned.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Uh-huh.

[DEFENDANT]: I understand that. If you do not have a lawyer one will be appointed to be represented. I don't know what that costs. If you decide to—at any time to exercise this right and then not answer questions—

DETECTIVE JONITES: Or make any statements. In other words, you could stop talking to us any time you like.

[DEFENDANT]: I don't understand that.

DETECTIVE JONITES: It's just if you are done talking, you are saying you know what, I'm done talking.

[DEFENDANT]: But if I'm talking in front of a judge—

DETECTIVE JONITES: This ain't in front of a judge. It's do you want to talk to me and my partner Ed here. This is all we are asking.

[DEFENDANT]: What if I say I don't feel like talking?

DETECTIVE JONITES: Then you don't have to talk to us.

[DEFENDANT]: I'll be charged with contempt of court.

DETECTIVE JONITES: I am not charging you with nothing, Bill. It's up to you. You can tell me I don't want to talk to you and—

[DEFENDANT]: I don't like those rights.

DETECTIVE JONITES: But do you understand them and do you want to continue to talk to us?

[DEFENDANT]: I'll talk to you but I cannot understand my rights.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Okay. All right. Well, I read you the rights, Bill, and we went over every aspect of them that I—and tried to explain them to you and everything. With having these rights in mind do you want to talk to me and Ed?

[DEFENDANT]: No.

DETECTIVE JONITES: You don't want to talk to us?

[DEFENDANT]: No, I will.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Okay. All right. Well, good, good.

[DEFENDANT]: But it's not because I understand my rights.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Okay. Well, I don't know how else I could explain them to you any better.

[DEFENDANT]: They wrote them wrong.

DETECTIVE JONITES: Well, they have been like that since the—since I started on the job almost [24] years ago. They have been the same and I've never had anybody that really had a problem understanding them.

[DEFENDANT]: I do.

DETECTIVE JONITES: All right, Bill.

[DEFENDANT]: I'm not trying to be rude.

...