People v. Turner

1

2024 IL 129208

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. CORTEZ TURNER, Appellant.

No. 129208

Supreme Court of Illinois

September 19, 2024

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

Chief Justice Theis and Justices Neville, Overstreet, Holder White Cunningham, and O'Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

ROCHFORD, JUSTICE

¶1 Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Jackson County, defendant Cortez Turner was convicted of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2016)), aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. § 24-1.2(a)(1)) conspiracy to commit aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. §§ 8-2, 24-1.2(a)(1)), and two counts of perjury (id. § 32-2(a)). Defendant appealed, and the Appellate Court, Fifth District, vacated his conspiracy conviction and one of his perjury convictions but otherwise affirmed the circuit court's judgment. 2022 IL App (5th) 190329. Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal, arguing that the appellate court erred in upholding the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress items of his clothing that the police took from his trauma room in a hospital emergency department. According to defendant, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trauma room, and therefore the police were required to obtain a warrant before entering the room. We allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal, and we now affirm the appellate court's judgment.

¶2 BACKGROUND

¶3 On October 24, 2016, a shooting occurred in Murphysboro Illinois, resulting in the death of Detrick Rogers. Defendant sustained a gunshot wound during the incident. In front of the grand jury, defendant denied knowing how he was shot. After evidence came to light implicating defendant in the shooting of Rogers, the State charged him with two counts of perjury. The State eventually charged defendant with several other offenses arising out of the incident, including first degree murder.

¶4 Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the police violated his rights under the fourth amendment (U.S. Const., amend. IV) and the search and seizure clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6) when they seized his clothing while he was being treated in a trauma room in the emergency department of St. Joseph Memorial Hospital. Defendant argued that the police did not have a warrant, the clothing was not in plain view, and defendant did not consent to its seizure. Defense counsel was subsequently allowed to withdraw from the case, and the court appointed new counsel. Defendant's new attorney filed another motion to suppress the clothing. This motion generally repeated the arguments from the first motion but also argued that the clothing was not seized incident to an arrest.

¶5 At the hearing on the motion to suppress, defendant presented the testimony of three witnesses. Janet Womick testified that she is a registered nurse and that she was working at the emergency department of St. Joseph Memorial Hospital on October 24, 2016. She treated defendant, whom she said was a "gunshot victim that walked in the door." Womick testified that a patient who walks in with a trauma is taken to a room and triaged immediately.

¶6 Womick was asked to review the chart she prepared that evening. After reviewing the chart, Womick testified that defendant began receiving treatment at 1:44 a.m. Defendant's triage would have involved removing his clothing, doing a visual assessment, and multiple other tasks. The chart showed that he was administered morphine at 3 a.m. and again at 3:30 a.m.

¶7 The chart contained two paragraphs about detectives arriving and requesting to see the patient's clothing. Womick remembered that defendant's clothing was on the counter. Some of defendant's clothing had blood on it. The bloody items, which Womick believed were defendant's underpants and sweatpants, were in a plastic bag. Womick said that the blood on the clothes was visible through the bag. Defendant's shirt was out on the counter; Womick did not remember the shirt being bloody. Womick remembered defendant's shoes being at the foot of the bed.

¶8 Womick described the trauma room as "very small." She said that it measures 8 feet by 10 feet. Womick testified that everything in the room was visible from the door.

¶9 Womick remembered that two police officers entered the room and told defendant that they were going to need his stuff. Defendant was very cooperative with the police. Womick testified that her documentation showed that defendant specifically agreed that the officers could take his clothes.

¶10 On cross-examination, Womick explained that, prior to defendant's arrival in the emergency department, she had been expecting a gunshot victim via ambulance. The hospital had received a call that a gunshot victim would be arriving by ambulance in approximately four to six minutes. Defendant walked in the door while Womick was waiting to meet the ambulance. The ambulance with the other victim arrived approximately two minutes later. Womick explained that, when a patient arrives at the emergency room, she will talk to the patient to figure out what is going on and what level of treatment is necessary. When defendant arrived, he told her that he had been shot. He explained that he had been outside with a friend trying to get someone to pick him up. He borrowed someone's phone, and then he heard some shots, and he dropped to the ground. When he got up, he realized that he was bleeding from the leg.

¶11 Womick testified that, when a gunshot victim comes to the hospital, the hospital is required to notify the police. In this case, the police were not contacted because the hospital had been notified that they were already on their way. Womick testified that she removed defendant's clothing because he was a trauma victim and she had to make sure the wound in his leg was the only injury. She placed all of the clothing on the counter but placed the bloody items inside a plastic bag. The counter on which she placed the clothing abutted the door, so a person who walks into the room would have been right next to the clothing and could easily see it.

¶12 Womick's notes showed that two police officers arrived on the scene and spoke with defendant at 2 a.m. Womick said that the officers asked defendant if they could see his clothing, and he agreed. Womick explained that the officers would already have seen defendant's clothing because it was in plain sight, but they nevertheless asked to see it. Womick's notes reflected that the officers told defendant that they were taking his clothing and that he shook his head in agreement. Womick was certain that the police requested the clothing from defendant and not from her. Womick recalled defendant being very cooperative with the police. Womick's notes showed that the clothing was bagged and taken by the police at 3:15 a.m. Defendant's mother was also in the room at this time. Womick did not hear anyone voice an objection to the police taking defendant's clothes. The police did not exhibit any pressure or intimidation, and their conversation with defendant was cordial. Womick further explained that defendant was not given morphine until after he consented to the police taking his clothes. Defendant did not have any difficulty communicating and did not appear to be confused, although he described the pain in his leg as a 9 out of 10.

¶13 On redirect examination, Womick reiterated that defendant had not yet been given morphine when he consented to the police taking his clothes.

¶14 Chris Liggett testified that he is a detective with the Jackson County Sheriff's Office. On October 24, 2016, another officer called and woke him up to tell him about a shooting incident and to ask him to go to the hospital in Murphysboro. When Liggett arrived at St. Joseph Memorial Hospital, he met with a number of police officers who were investigating the shooting. Liggett testified that Detective Corey Etherton from the Murphysboro Police Department was already speaking with defendant when Liggett arrived at defendant's room in the emergency room. In addition to Etherton being present, Liggett recalled a nurse going in and out of the room. He remembered that she told him to get out of her way on one occasion.

¶15 Liggett testified that he and Etherton asked defendant questions about how he got shot and what circumstances of the shooting he could remember. Liggett said that defendant told them where his clothing was. He could see that there was blood on the items of clothing that were in the bag. The detectives asked if they could look at his clothes, and defendant said "yes." He also gave them permission to take the clothes. The only issue defendant had with the detectives taking his clothes was that he was concerned with how quickly he could get his shoes back because someone in his family had bought them for him. Liggett did not recall defendant's mother being in the room at this time. Liggett testified that defendant was lucid during the conversation and that he was not aware that defendant had been administered morphine.

¶16 Liggett testified that he did not write a report that evening but Etherton did. Liggett believed that the report would show that the detectives asked defendant permission to take his clothes. After being shown the report, however, Liggett acknowledged that the report did not mention defendant consenting to the detectives taking his clothes.

¶17 On cross-examination, Liggett reiterated that he specifically remembered asking defendant if the clothes on the counter were his. Defendant replied, "yes, they are." He was also certain that either he or Detective Etherton asked if they could look at the clothes and if they could...