People v. Wilson

2017 IL App (1st) 143183

86 N.E.3d 1231

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

v.John WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-14-3183

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.

Filed September 22, 2017

Rehearing denied October 13, 2017

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Chan Woo Yoon, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Annette Collins, Amy Watroba, and Whitney Bond, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 After a jury trial, defendant John Wilson was convicted of first degree murder, armed robbery, home invasion, and residential burglary. On appeal, he contends that the State introduced DNA evidence against him that lacked an adequate foundation. He also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to (1) request a Frye hearing regarding the State's historical cell site analysis evidence and (2) object when the court tendered a general verdict form for first degree murder to the jury. We affirm.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 At trial, the State presented testimony from 45 witnesses. Most of this testimony is not relevant to the issues raised by defendant. Thus, in the interest of brevity, we summarize only that testimony most germane to the issues presented.

¶ 4 On the morning of October 27, 2011, Brenda O'Laughlin left her home in Indian Head Park, Illinois, and went to work. When she returned home shortly before 5 p.m., she saw blood and a knife in the family room, and her daughter, Kelli O'Laughlin, lying face down on the floor in the kitchen. Brenda called 9-1-1. When paramedics arrived, they performed CPR on Kelli and took her to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

¶ 5 While the paramedics treated Kelli, Sergeant Raymond Leuser, a police officer with the Indian Head Park police department, entered the home and walked into the dining room, where he saw a broken window and glass on the floor. Sergeant Leuser searched the rest of the home and then alerted the South Suburban Major Crimes Task Force.

¶ 6 Officer Ronald Sachtleben testified that he worked for the Cook County Sheriff's Police as an investigator for the criminalistics unit. His job was to process and document crime scenes. Officer Sachtleben arrived at the O'Laughlin home shortly before 6 p.m. on October 27, 2011. To preserve evidence, he wore latex gloves and protective shoe coverings.

¶ 7 During his investigation, Officer Sachtleben observed a red knit hat containing a rock lying on the floor underneath a dining room chair. Officer Sachtleben took pictures of the hat and rock and "recovered" the hat. At trial, he viewed the hat and rock and testified that both items were in the same or substantially same condition as when he recovered them.

¶ 8 Defendant was arrested on November 2, 2011, and taken to the LaGrange police department for processing. There, Officer Sachtleben met with defendant and took a buccal swab from him. Officer Sachtleben testified that after taking the buccal swab, he packaged the sample, sealed it, and turned it over to Detective Wodka, another member of the Task Force.

¶ 9 Michael Matthews, a forensic scientist with the Illinois State Police, testified that he performed forensic analysis on the red hat. Matthews stated that the hat was in a sealed bag when he received it. He explained that he swabbed the inside of the hat and used scissors to remove the section of the hat that would have been in contact with Wilson's forehead to preserve it for further testing. At trial, Matthews viewed the hat and testified that it was in the same or substantially same condition as when he worked on it.

¶ 10 Lynette Wilson, a forensic scientist with the Illinois State Police, testified that she performed a PCR/STR DNA analysis on the red hat. She explained that "PCR" stood for "polymerase chain reaction," a method of copying specific locations on a piece of DNA for comparison, and that "STR" stood for "short tandem repeats," i.e., "the specific locations on the DNA" that are used for comparison. She described the process of DNA analysis as follows:

"The first step in my analysis is what I call extraction. Basically it's where I add chemicals to a stain to release the DNA from the cells in the stain. I also purify the DNA. And then after that, after isolating the DNA, I then measure how much I have and verify that it's of human origin.

Then at that point I am usually working with small amounts of DNA, so it's then necessary to copy the amount that I have, and that's that PCR process I mentioned earlier. Basically, it's like copying a document on a Xerox machine. I copy the DNA until I have enough that I can detect a profile.

So after I amplify the DNA, I add a little bit to an instrument which will determine the DNA profile for me.

* * *

*** I then compare the DNA profile from an evidence stain to the DNA profile from a suspected donor to that stain."

¶ 11 Wilson testified that she received the swab and cutting from the red hat and performed DNA analysis on both items, which revealed the presence of DNA from two people. Wilson then identified "a major human male DNA profile." Wilson compared that profile to a DNA profile of defendant and determined that the major DNA profile from the red hat "matched the DNA profile of [defendant]." Wilson then "calculated the statistics that shows how often that profile would be expected to be seen in the population." She found that the major DNA profile on the red hat "would be expected to occur in approximate 1 in 4.5 quintillion black, 1 in 300 quintillion white, or [1] in 150 quintillion Hispanic unrelated individuals." Wilson stated that her opinions were "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty."

¶ 12 FBI agent Joseph Raschke testified as an expert in the field of historical cell site analysis (HCSA). Agent Raschke testified that when cell phones are used to make calls, phone companies keep records of the date and time of the call, the phone numbers involved, the duration of the call, and "which cell towers that phone was communicating with for that call." Agent Raschke explained that HCSA consists of the analysis of these records "to determine an approximate location for where a cell phone was at a particular date and time." In addition, Agent Raschke explained that a cell phone's location may be determined using "forced location registration." He explained that a forced location registration occurs when the phone company "forces the phone to *** disclose it's [sic] location either by a GPS signal or by making contact with the nearby cell towers so that a location can be triangulated."

¶ 13 Using records from Sprint (for Kelli's phone) and Cricket Wireless (for defendant's phone), Agent Raschke created a map showing the general location and movement of Kelli's and defendant's cell phones throughout October 27 and 28, 2011. According to his analysis, at 12:01 a.m. on October 27, defendant's phone used a Cricket tower that was near his residence at 7950 South Lafayette Avenue in Chicago. At 1:52 p.m., defendant's phone used a Cricket tower in Indian Head Park to place a call to Karen Yoch, a real estate broker who had a home listed for sale in Western Springs, Illinois.

¶ 14 At 3:22 p.m., defendant's phone participated in two calls that utilized Cricket tower 605. Agent Raschke explained that Kelli's home was inside tower 605's coverage sector. At 3:41 p.m., Kelli's phone placed an outgoing call that utilized Sprint tower 277. Agent Raschke explained that Sprint tower 277 was located in a lot with "multiple pieces of cellular equipment," including Cricket tower 605, which he stated was "right next to" Sprint tower 277.

¶ 15 On October 28 at 12:26 p.m., Kelli's phone placed a call that utilized a Sprint tower near 637 East Woodland Park Avenue in Chicago, where one of defendant's friends lived. At 12:27 p.m., Kelli's phone was "pinged," revealing that it was near 637 East Woodland Park Avenue. One minute later, defendant's cell phone placed a call that utilized a Cricket tower in the vicinity of 637 East Woodland Park Avenue. Based on this data, Agent Raschke concluded that defendant's cell phone and Kelli's cell phone were "in close proximity to each other."

¶ 16 At 3:49 p.m., defendant's cell phone placed a call that utilized a Cricket tower that was two blocks east of 11557 South Yale Avenue in Chicago. Three minutes later, Kelli's phone was "pinged," revealing within an accuracy radius of 20 meters that it was near 11557 South Yale Avenue. At 4:27 p.m., defendant's phone made another call using the same tower. Four minutes later, Kelli's phone was pinged, which again revealed that it was near 11557 South Yale Avenue. According to Agent Raschke, this data indicated that both phones were "in a similar location."

¶ 17 At 11:29 p.m., defendant's phone used a Cricket tower near Bryn Mawr and Lakeshore Drive in Chicago. At 2:11 a.m. on October 29, 2011, Kelli's phone was pinged, revealing that it, too, was in an area near Bryn Mawr and Lakeshore Drive in Chicago. Agent Raschke explained that this data indicated that both phones "moved from the far south side of Chicago and are now up on the North side of Chicago." Ultimately, Agent Raschke opined "to a reasonable degree of certainty" that from 3:30 p.m. on October 27, 2011, to October 29, 2011, both phones were "consistently located in the same general vicinity."

¶ 18 During the instruction conference, the State propounded a first degree murder instruction which articulated three theories of culpability: intentional, knowing, and felony murder. The felony murder portion of the instruction alleged that defendant performed the acts which caused Kelli's death while committing an armed robbery, home invasion, or residential burglary. The State also propounded a general verdict form for first degree murder. Defendant...