People v. Degorski

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2008 » People v. Degorski

People v. Degorski

State: Illinois

Court: 1st District Appellate

Docket No: 1-07-2784 Rel

Case Date: 03/31/2008

Preview:SIXTH DIVISION March 31, 2008

No. 1-07-2784 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES DEGORSKI, Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 02 CR 15430 The Honorable Vincent M. Gaughan Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: Defendant, James Degorski, was indicted on 21 counts of first degree murder for the January 8, 1993 murders of seven individuals at a Brown's Chicken restaurant in Palatine, Illinois. Defendant moved to quash his arrest and suppress an The circuit court denied all but The

oral and videotaped statement.

defendant's motion to suppress his videotaped statement.

State filed a notice of appeal and a certificate of substantial impairment. The State argues that the circuit court erred in

suppressing defendant's entire videotaped statement because defendant previously had been admonished and re-admonished of his constitutional rights and it was neither necessary nor consistent with Illinois law to require new Miranda warnings before commencing the videotaped statement. Defendant contends that the

circuit court's finding that Miranda warnings were required prior to the videotaped statement was not against the manifest weight

1-07-2784 of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the

ruling of the circuit court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND On June 11, 2002, defendant was charged with 21 counts of first degree murder in the shooting and stabbing deaths of seven workers at a Brown's Chicken restaurant in Palatine, Illinois on January 8, 1993. In March 2002, the Palatine police department

received a lead from Anne Lockett, who claimed to be defendant's former girlfriend. Lockett told Palatine police sergeant Bill

King that shortly after the murders, defendant called her while she was in the hospital. she should watch the news. He told her "I did something" and that Lockett stated that all of the news

coverage that night related to the murders that occurred at the Brown's Chicken in Palatine. Approximately two weeks later, Lockett was released from the hospital and had another conversation with defendant in his bedroom, and this time, codefendant Juan Luna was also present. Defendant and codefendant told her that codefendant "wanted to ice somebody" and they picked the Brown's Chicken in Palatine because codefendant previously worked there and was familiar with the manner in which the restaurant was operated. The defendants

told Lockett that they drove to the restaurant in codefendant's car, parked behind the shopping center and carefully walked through the snow. The two men entered the restaurant and ordered

2

1-07-2784 chicken and began eating. Defendant became upset with

codefendant because he was getting grease on his fingers and defendant worried codefendant would leave fingerprints in the restaurant. Before the incident occurred, defendants went into the bathroom to put on gloves. Defendants confronted the employees Lockett told

with a knife and codefendant's .38-caliber gun.

King that an altercation started when one employee tried to escape by jumping over the counter and a round was fired. Codefendant told her that he slit a woman's throat and both recounted how they shot and killed two remaining victims and that defendant had to "finish off" one of the victims after codefendant shot him. Defendants told Lockett that they mopped Later, defendants

up the floor and retrieved the shell casings.

threw the gun used in the murders in the Fox River. Relative to evidence that was collected at the crime scene, Lockett told King that defendant indicated that when he shot one victim, he threw up his french fries. King considered this to be

an important piece of information because it could only be known to individuals who were present at the crime scene. Also

recovered at the crime scene was a partially eaten piece of chicken which was found in an otherwise empty garbage bag. Based

on Lockett's statement to King, defendants were asked to speak with investigators and provide buccal swabs for DNA samples, which were sent to the Illinois State crime lab for analysis.

3

1-07-2784 After speaking to investigators in Palatine for more than 30 minutes on April 27, 2002, defendant indicated that he would speak with King again if necessary. On May 7, 2002, the crime

lab notified King that the DNA taken from the partially eaten chicken in the garbage can matched codefendant's DNA. After receiving the DNA analysis results, King learned that Eileen Bakalla had come forward and told authorities that defendant had admitted his involvement in the murders to her. early May 2002, Lockett and Bakalla had testified before the grand jury about defendant's involvement in the murders. Palatine Police Chief John Koziol ordered King and Detective Dan Briscoe to locate defendant and ask him to come to Palatine to answer questions about the murders. Based on the evidence By

collected in the course of the investigation, King learned that defendant was living with his brother in Indianapolis. King and

Briscoe drove to Indianapolis on May 16, 2002, where undercover Palatine police officers had been keeping defendant under surveillance for the previous two days. Through the surveillance

King learned that defendant would park his personal vehicle in a parking lot outside Indianapolis and exchange it for a work vehicle. Hamilton County officers and Indiana state troopers met with King and Briscoe at approximately 2 p.m. on May 16, at the parking lot where defendant was expected to exchange his vehicle. King explained to the Indiana officers that he would ask

4

1-07-2784 defendant to accompany him to Palatine to answer some question regarding the murders. Defendant arrived at 3:30 p.m. at which

time King and Briscoe approached him and asked if he would accompany them to Palatine to assist in the murder investigation. Defendant agreed and asked if he could first transfer his tools from his work vehicle, which he did. The Indiana and undercover

Palatine officers were in the area; however, they did not approach defendant with King and Briscoe. Defendant consented to

a pat-down by King to check for weapons and then entered King's car and sat in the backseat on the driver's side. Although defendant agreed to accompany King and Briscoe to Palatine to assist in the investigation, King asked defendant to sign a consent to travel form, which he did. advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant was not

King followed the Hamilton County During

officer to the highway and drove back toward Illinois.

the ride, the three men made "small talk," but the murder investigation was not discussed during the drive to Illinois. approximately 8 p.m., King received a call from Koziol, who redirected them to the Streamwood police department because the news media had learned that defendant would be brought in for questioning at the Palatine police department. King, Briscoe and At

defendant arrived at the Streamwood Police Department at 8 p.m. and went directly into an interview room. Moments after arriving at the police station, King advised defendant of his Miranda rights. Defendant stated that he

5

1-07-2784 understood his rights and agreed to speak with King. interviewed defendant for about 45 minutes. King

In this interview,

defendant admitted to his involvement in the murders at the Brown's Chicken restaurant. During the break, King offered

defendant food, drink and the use of the facilities, all of which defendant declined. The interview resumed at approximately 9

p.m. and continued for an additional 45 minutes when King and Briscoe left the interview room and briefed Assistant State's Attorney McHale (McHale) on the results of the interview. At 10:30 p.m., King introduced defendant to McHale, who informed defendant that he was a prosecutor and not defendant's attorney and proceeded to administer Miranda warnings. King left King

the room and McHale and defendant spoke for about an hour. resumed questioning defendant around midnight which lasted approximately three hours.

At 4 a.m., McHale joined King and At the conclusion of

interviewed defendant for three more hours.

the interview, McHale asked if defendant would agree to have his statement video recorded, to which defendant answered that he was exhausted and wanted to sleep. defendant to sleep in his cell. King made arrangements for While defendant was sleeping,

King went home and McHale slept on a couch in the police station. At approximately 4 p.m., King notified McHale that defendant agreed to give a videotaped statement. McHale prepared

introductory remarks, exhibits and arranged for a videographer to tape the statement. Prior to taping the defendant's statement,

6

1-07-2784 McHale had defendant sign a consent form for defendant to be taped and furnished defendant with a photograph of codefendant and the consent to travel form that defendant signed on May 16, 2002. The videotaping commenced at 4:13 p.m. and the following

colloquy between defendant and McHale occurred: "[ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEY]: Okay; let the record reflect that today is May 17th, 2002. We are in an inter -

- interview room at the Streamwood Police Department. Present in the room with me, Assistant State's Attorney Mike McHale, are Sergeant Bill King of the Palatine Police and James Degorski. We are here to take the statement of James Degorski concerning the investigation of the homicidal deaths of seven individuals which occurred on January 8th, 1993, at approximately 9:00 p.m., at the Brown's Chicken at 168 West Northwestern Highway in Palatine, Illinois. Jim, before we spoke, I explained that I am an assistant state's attorney, a lawyer and prosecutor and not your lawyer, is that correct? A. [Indicating] (Nodding) Q. You need to answer out loud. A. Yes Q. Okay. And before we spoke I advised you of your

constitutional rights, is that correct? A. Yes.

7

1-07-2784 Q. Okay. I need you to just do me a favor and keep your Okay. Jim, I talked to you earlier and

voice up a little.

you told me about the homicidal deaths of the seven individuals. And at that time you told me in summary that

you and Juan Luna planned a robbery at the Brown's Chicken in Palatine. And that during the robbery you shot two

people in the cooler and Juan shot the other five and stabbed the lady. you later. Money was taken and was split up between

Is that correct?

A. [Inaudible]. Q. Okay. Again, I know it's - - I know it's hard but if you could just keep your voice up for us, okay. I just said to you then, is that correct? A. Right. Q. Okay, I'm gonna [sic] read you your rights again. you understand that you have the right to remain silent? A. Yes. Q. Do you understand that you have - - understand that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law? A. Yes. Q. Do you understand that you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned? A. Yeah. Q. Do you understand that if you cannot afford to hire a Do Okay, what

8

1-07-2784 lawyer and want one, a lawyer will be appointed by the court to represent you before any questioning. A. [Inaudible]. Q. Understanding these rights, Jim, do you wish to talk to us now? A. Not really. Q. Okay. Earlier, you told us what happened, right? spent a long time talking with Bill and myself, is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. I gave you your rights before when I first met You

you, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you told me you understood your rights? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And I have just given those to you again. Do

you wish to talk to us at this time and tell us everything you told us before? A. I would much rather just say it in court. Q. Okay. I just - -

I want to show you what I gave you here, that's

a Consent to the Videotape Statement, correct? A. Yes. Q. Do you see your signature on there? A. Yes, that's my signature there on the first line. Q. Can you point to it?

9

1-07-2784 A. Right next to that X right here. [Indicating] Q. Okay. And you basically said that you were willing to

give a videostate - - statement about this case? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So - A. And on Number 1, it gave me the option to not say anything if I didn't - Q. Okay. What part of it? That I don't have to say anything - -

A. I think one.

right to remain silent. Q. Are you asking to remain silent? You don't want to It's your

give a video statement today at this time? choice, Jim. A. Yeah, I want to - Q. I guess - -

A. - - but it would it just - - it'll be easier just to say it one time - - or say it in court rather. said it. I've already

It's not like I have anything to hide or whatever. This is what you and I and Bill talked before,

Q. Okay. correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay.

It is your choice.

I mean as you sit here now,

you can tell me, I don't want to talk about this or I do want to talk about this. before. So - Now we've been through this

10

1-07-2784 A. I don't want to talk about - - I mean, I don't want to talk about it. Q. So - - all right. You realize by doing this that we Is that what

are stopping the tape and we're walking out. you want us to do? A. Then I'll just say it in court then. Q. Okay.

I need you to tell me what you want us to do.

So you want us to stop the tape and do you want us to leave, or would you like to continue to tell us what happened? Your choice. [pause] A. I don't want to talk about it at this time. I - Q. So you - - do you understand that I'm stopping the tape and I'm walking out? A. Yeah. Q. Yes, okay. James DeGorski." The duration of the entire videotape was 4 minutes, 32 seconds. Based on defendant's statements, the grand jury testimony and statements from Lockett and Bakalla and evidence collected at the crime scene defendant was charged with 21 counts of first degree murder. Defendant was subsequently transported to the This now concludes the video statement of Is that what you want us to do?

Cook County jail where he was assigned a cell in division nine. During the time defendant was in custody he allegedly made a statement to a Alicia Hines, a paramedic at the Cook County jail,

11

1-07-2784 regarding his involvement in the murders while receiving medical treatment.1 On December 13, 2006, defendant filed a motion to On August 20,

suppress any and all statements he made to police.

2007, defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The circuit court heard arguments on defendant's motions to quash arrest, suppress evidence and suppress statements. The

court denied defendant's motions to quash arrest and suppress evidence. However, with regard to the motion to suppress the

statements, the circuit court partially granted and partially denied it. Three components of defendant's motion were

identified by the court: (1) the oral statements made to police on May 16 and 17; (2) the videotaped statement; and (3) the statement made to Alicia Hines while receiving medical treatment. The circuit court denied defendant's motion to suppress his oral statements to police and Alicia Hines but granted his motion to suppress his videotaped statement. The circuit court gave the

following reasons for partially denying and partially granting defendant's motion: "All right, as to the oral statements, as to the operative paragraphs in the motion to suppress statements filed by [defendant]. I find that the State has disproved

those paragraphs beyond a preponderance of the evidence.

At times in the record, Hines' first name is spelled "Alesia." 12

1

1-07-2784 Looking at the totality of the circumstances under which those statements were made. I find that [defendant's] will

was not overborne and that his statements were made voluntarily and the evidence reflects that. As to the video

tape, first - again, you have to look at the totality of the circumstances, and the attitude of the people that were questioning [defendant] and how they confronted him, and how they treated him on Page 154 of the transcript [defendant] said that he would want to get some sleep before he would make the video, and they allowed him to go to sleep. On

Page 156 of the transcript [defendant] said his mind set, he said I don't like to take videos, even at parties, but I'll do it here. So the next event is after [defendant] sleeps, the consent to video is signed and [defendant] is taken into the room with the videographer *** and [the] Assistant State's Attorney (ASA) *** and Sergeant King. There's a little

colloquy before [the ASA] starts to give [defendant] his constitutional rights under Miranda and Escobedo and there is a point where it could be interpreted as not being very clear when he said not really. You have to look at [the ASA's] conduct also. Certainly

when [defendant] requested sleep, there was no problem about giving him sleep or rushing him right into video. So I

think when I say it is my opinion is that there was nothing

13

1-07-2784 unjust or unlawful or unethical about questioning it further. [The ASA] did and the final result was [defendant] So my finding there

did not want to make a video statement.

is that whole video statement goes out as a violation of Miranda not that it's involuntary. So that means that if

[defendant] testifies, that part of the statement can come in." The State properly filed its certificate of substantial impairment pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (210 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)) and now appeals the ruling of the circuit court. ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review Courts of review in Illinois generally apply a bifurcated standard of review in situations where a ruling presents a mixed question of law and fact. People v. Jones, 215 Ill. 2d 261, 267

(2005); People v. Ballard, 206 Ill. 2d 151, 162-63 (2002); People v. Watson, 214 Ill. 2d 271, 279 (2005). In the instant case, we

are called upon to review a circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress, which is a mixed question of law and fact. Rivera, 227 Ill. 2d 1, 7-8 (2007). People v.

At a hearing on a defendant's

motion to suppress, the circuit court's function is to determine the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be assigned to their testimony and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Ballard, 206 Ill. 2d at 162-63. In determining whether a trial

14

1-07-2784 court has properly ruled on a motion to suppress, the reviewing court accords great deference to the findings of fact and credibility determinations made by the circuit court which will be reversed on appeal only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Christopher K., 217 Ill. 2d 348, We

373 (2005); People v. Braggs, 209 Ill. 2d 492, 505 (2003).

review de novo, however, the ultimate question posed by the legal challenge to the circuit court's ruling on a suppression motion. People v. Nicholas, 218 Ill. 2d 104, 116 (2005). II. Necessity of New Miranda Warnings The circuit court ruled that the entire video would be suppresses due to a "Miranda violation." Since it is clear that

defendant received Miranda warnings in full on two occasions during previous interviews, the issue squarely presented before this court is whether the circuit court erred in ruling that ASA McHale was required to administer fresh Miranda warnings prior to commencing the videotaped statement. The State argues that the

circuit court erred because re-admonishment of warnings was not required by Illinois law under the circumstances here. Defendant

argues that the circuit court's finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the record supports a finding that previous warnings had become stale, the admission of the videotape serves no purpose other than to remind the jury that defendant invoked his right to silence in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 49 L. Ed 91, 96 S. Ct. 2240 (1976) and the

15

1-07-2784 State impermissibly employed the "question first" and advise defendant of Miranda rights "later" approach under Missouri v.

Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 159 L. Ed. 2d 643, 124 S. Ct. 2601 (2004). Our supreme court has specifically addressed when, and under what circumstances, Miranda warnings can become stale in People v. Garcia, 165 Ill. 2d 409, 425-26 (1995), (citing to 1 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure

Download People v. Degorski.pdf