People v. Tompkins

2023 IL 127805

216 N.E.3d 880

466 Ill.Dec. 47

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

v.Trumane TOMPKINS, Appellant.

Docket No. 127805

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed February 17, 2023.

James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Douglas R. Hoff, Deputy Defender, and Yasaman Hannah Navai, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Katherine M. Doersch and Nicholas Moeller, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE OVERSTREET delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, Trumane Tompkins, appeals his conviction for unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2018). On appeal, he argues that the Cook County circuit court erred in declining to give the jury a non-Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (non-IPI) pursuant to section 10-30 of the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (Act) ( 50 ILCS 706/10-30 (West 2018) ) and admitting body camera footage showing marijuana belonging to defendant's coarrestee. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 A. Motion in Limine

¶ 4 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion in limine , seeking, inter alia , to prohibit the State from presenting any evidence, whether by testimony or video, regarding the recovery of marijuana that was allegedly possessed by a coarrestee at the time of defendant's arrest. At the start of trial, the State informed the circuit court that it had no intention of introducing any evidence regarding the marijuana. At that time, defendant made the circuit court aware that one of the two body camera videos the State intended to show depicts one officer throwing a bag of marijuana at another officer. Defendant argued that he was not charged with possession of the marijuana, and there was no allegation he had anything to do with the marijuana. Defendant argued that he would be prejudiced by playing that part of the video for the jury because it could cause an inference in the jury's minds that the marijuana belonged to him.

¶ 5 In response, the State argued that the footage at issue was part of a continuous video and, immediately after the video depicts the bag of marijuana, the video depicts the gun that is the subject of defendant's charge on the ground where it was located. Within seconds, the officer that ultimately inventories the gun on his body camera enters the frame of the video and sees the gun. The State represented to the circuit court that excluding the video in its entirety would be cutting off a very relevant portion of the video and that "it [i]s so close in time and proximity it would be hard to cut that part out." The State argued that defendant's concerns could easily be remedied by establishing that a codefendant was arrested for possession of the marijuana and that the marijuana was not in the possession of defendant.

¶ 6 In reply, defendant argued that the State intended to show another, shorter video that depicts the gun being found where it is lying on the ground and picked up by another officer. Defendant asked the circuit court to limit the State to the showing of that video. The circuit court denied the motion in limine , stating that it was "not going to make the State's decisions with respect to what video is better or worse from a persuasive standpoint."

¶ 7 B. Jury Trial

¶ 8 1. Opening Statement

¶ 9 During defendant's opening statement, counsel stated the following:

"There are two body camera videos. Those are videos that are from a camera that's mounted on an officer's uniform whether it's on their chest or on their left belt or somewhere along those lines. Those two body camera videos will not show Mr. Tompkins [d]oing anything. In fact, they will not show Mr. Tompkins at all.

Interestingly enough, Officer Martinez, the only officer that allegedly sees Mr. Tompkins with a gun[,] will not have any video to show you; and that is because although he was wearing a body camera it was not active, it was not turned [on] when this incident occurred, so we will have videos that will not show Mr. Tompkins doing anything."

¶ 10 2. Officer Opacian

¶ 11 Officer Piotr Opacian testified he is an officer with the Chicago Police Department. He was on duty at 11 p.m. on April 23, 2018, along with his partner, Officer Amaris Furlan, in a marked police vehicle, when he observed a vehicle with an inoperable license plate light. He attempted to pull the vehicle over by activating the lights and sirens on his squad car. The vehicle slowed down and began to pull over but then took off at a very high rate of speed. He followed the vehicle and observed the vehicle disobey a red light and almost T-bone a car at the intersection. Officer Opacian then turned off his lights and sirens and slowed down due to public safety concerns but continued to follow the vehicle. The vehicle violated multiple stop signs before he lost sight of the vehicle for a few seconds. When he regained sight of the vehicle, it had crashed into a house and fence. Three occupants exited from the vehicle and fled in separate directions on foot. Officer Opacian observed defendant exit from the rear of the vehicle. Officer Opacian then parked the vehicle, and he and Officer Furlan proceeded to pursue the suspects on foot. A video of Officer Opacian's squad car dash camera footage was played for the jury.

¶ 12 Officer Opacian testified that, as he exited his vehicle to pursue the suspects, an assisting squad car arrived on scene and drove in the direction of where defendant had run. Officer Constantino Martinez was driving that vehicle, and Officer Opacian soon learned that Officer Martinez had defendant in custody and that a weapon had been located near where defendant was apprehended. He went to the area and observed a red and black Glock 22, .40-caliber gun with an extended magazine. It was located between two apartment buildings behind a fence in the front gangway area. The magazine of the gun had 19 live rounds, and there was 1 live round in the chamber. He collected, disabled, bagged, and sealed the gun and placed it into evidence inventory at the station.

¶ 13 A clip of Officer Opacian's body camera footage showing him recovering the gun was then played for the jury. Officer Opacian testified that marijuana found on scene and briefly depicted in the video was from a different individual who had exited the vehicle, and not defendant. Officer Opacian then identified the gun, magazine, and ammunition in open court, and they were admitted into evidence. He testified that this was the first time he had ever seen a red Glock before, or a red handgun of any brand.

¶ 14 On cross-examination, Officer Opacian testified that police officers must follow certain rules with respect to their body cameras. He testified that officers are required to turn on the cameras anytime they are engaged "in some sort of stop," including a foot pursuit, and to turn the camera on, they must press a button twice. The camera then backtracks one minute and begins recording. Although he saw defendant, wearing a T-shirt, exit the vehicle and begin running, he did not observe the gun or any lumps or bulges in his clothing at that time. Officer Opacian reiterated that someone other than defendant was arrested for the cannabis observed on the video and that it was not recovered near where the gun was recovered.

¶ 15 3. Officer Martinez

¶ 16 Officer Constantino Martinez testified he was a Chicago police officer and was working with his partner, Katie Blocker, on the night in question. They were on duty in plainclothes but with marked tactical vests and an unmarked squad car when they received a call to assist with a traffic stop. Officer Martinez testified that he located Officer Opacian's police vehicle in pursuit of a fleeing vehicle and followed a safe distance behind. They lost sight of the fleeing vehicle, and when they found it again, it was crashed into a house. Officer Martinez saw the female driver and a male rear passenger flee from the vehicle. He then engaged in a foot pursuit of the male, whom he identified in court as defendant.

¶ 17 Officer Martinez testified that, as he pursued defendant, he observed him running at a fast pace and holding his waistband "like he was holding something, and he was trying to retrieve it from wherever he had it in his front waistband." He continued to run, and once he was finally able to retrieve the item from his front waistband, Officer Martinez saw him toss a black and red object. This occurred around 7111 South Champlain Avenue, in a front yard "with some steps and a black gate which was locked in front." Defendant tossed the object over the gate. He then stopped and raised his hands up in the air. Officer Martinez then detained him and placed him in handcuffs.

¶ 18 Officer Martinez testified that he was running 10 to 15 feet behind defendant when he saw him toss the object. There were no civilians in the area. He relayed the information to his partner, Officer Blocker, who searched that area and found the gun in the yard at that address, 10 to 15 feet away from where Officer Martinez had detained defendant.

¶ 19 The State engaged Officer Martinez in a line of questioning regarding his body camera:

"Q. Officer, on [the night in question] were you wearing a Chicago Police Department issued body camera?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to [the night in question] had you worn a body-worn camera before?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Can you describe how the body-worn cameras are activated and begin recording?

A. We have to manually press the body-worn camera, the middle button twice to activate the camera to start recording.

Q. Okay. And was your camera that you were wearing on [the night in question], did it capture the events of [the night in question]?

A. No.

Q. And why is that?

A. Due to the spontaneous nature of the event, everything happened so quickly, so fast. I

...