People v. Lisle

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 3rd District Appellate » 2007 » People v. Lisle

People v. Lisle

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-05-0032 Rel

Case Date: 10/05/2007

Preview:No. 3--05--0032 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2007 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN D. LISLE, JR., Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Filed:

10-5-07

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 14th Judicial Circuit, Rock Island County, Illinois No. 03--CF--821

Honorable Charles H. Stengel, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the opinion of the court: Defendant, Steven Lisle, Jr., was convicted of first degree murder and aggravated battery following a jury trial in the circuit court of Rock Island County. He appeals, claiming

improper hearsay testimony was admitted, necessitating reversal of his convictions and entitling him to a new trial. Defendant

also claims the State failed to offer evidence sufficient to convict him of the first degree murder of LaRoy Owens. affirm. BACKGROUND Defendant's jury trial commenced on September 27, 2004. The We

State's first witness was DeMarco Hearn, the first cousin of the

victim, LaRoy Owens.

DeMarco lived at 513 6th Avenue in Rock

Island and was at home asleep in his room on the morning Owens was shot. He was awakened by a loud noise and his mom saying she Within a couple of

heard shooting on the side of the house.

minutes of the sound of the shots, DeMarco went outside and saw Owens lying on the ground next to a van. DeMarco called 911

after he checked for a pulse on Owens and could not feel one. Tarisita Nimmers testified that the location of her house at 518 6th Avenue in Rock Island is about a half of block from the location where Owens was shot. Nimmers heard a single shot

followed by a 10-second pause and then five or six shots in rapid succession. Judy Dixon, likewise, testified that she lived close to the scene of the shooting and was at home when the police arrived early in the morning on September 15, 2003. She had just

returned home from work and was changing her clothes when she heard gunshots. She recalled a pause of a few seconds after

hearing the first shot, then a series of five more shots rang out. Following the sounds of the shots, Dixon heard what sounded

like two separate voices, as if the people talking were moving down the alley that runs next to Dixon's house. Chantel Gillette, a police officer with the Rock Island police department, testified that she was the first to respond to the scene at 513 6th Avenue. She arrived at the scene at 2

approximately 4:15 a.m. on September 15, 2003.

When she arrived,

she observed DeMarco pointing in the direction of a body that was lying next to the driver's door of a vehicle parked in the driveway. She went up to the body, saw a gunshot wound to the The

victim's head, and determined that the person had no pulse. officer then took steps to keep the area from being disturbed until other officers arrived. After she secured the area,

Gillette followed a trail of blood she saw leading down the driveway and onto 6th Avenue. The trail led to the home of Gillette testified

Angela Lee in the 700 block of 9th Avenue.

that there were no significant pools of blood at any point along the trail. When she arrived at the Lee residence, the person who

had been bleeding was already on his way to the hospital. Mary Devine testified that she was employed as a "technical investigator" for the Rock Island police department. She

personally took photographs and measurements of certain bloodstains that were located on and in a Ford Windstar minivan parked at the crime scene. She visually examined the van for

blood while the van was at the crime scene and then later, in the more controlled and well-lit location at the Rock Island police department. During these examinations, Devine recovered samples

of blood she found at various locations on the inside and outside of the van. for testing. She submitted the samples to the Morton crime lab A stipulation was entered into evidence noting that 3

a forensic scientist at the Morton crime lab, Debra Minton, ascertained that the DNA from the blood found by Devine on the inside panel of the driver's-side door matched the DNA profile of the decedent Owens. A separate stipulation indicated that Minton

would testify that the DNA from the blood that was found on the front passenger door of the minivan near the door handle matched the DNA profile of Ronald Hearn (thereinafter Hearn). Devine

testified that, in her opinion, the bloodspatter evidence she observed and collected was consistent with Hearn having been shot somewhere on the passenger side of the minivan. Devine also described, by reference to a diagram, the location of six spent shell casings that she recovered at the scene. Devine indicated that one of the shells was found on the

driver's side of the van and all of the others were recovered from areas outside the van. Devine was not able to find any Devine also obtained

fingerprint evidence on the shell casings.

one fired bullet from within the fabric of the front passenger seat of the van and took possession of the bullet that was removed from the body of Owens. Another stipulation was then

admitted into evidence that indicated firearms expert Chris Kozel received the six shell casings and two bullets from Devine. He

examined and performed tests on the casings and projectiles and was able to render an opinion that all of the casings and projectiles were fired from the same 9-millimeter handgun. 4

Devine further testified that the bloodspatter patterns of the drops of blood she observed and collected from the ground and on one of the shell casings near the passenger-side of the van were consistent with the injuries Hearn sustained. Whereas the

bloodspatter pattern found on the passenger-side door was more likely to have been caused by the initial trauma of the bullet impact, the blood she observed in the area of the shell casings and going across the driveway was of a low impact variety. Another stipulation was read during the latter part of Devine's direct examination that indicated Minton had identified the DNA in the blood recovered from the ground near shell casing number two and it matched the DNA of Hearn. Dr. Edward Leon testified that he is an emergency room physician and was working at Trinity West Hospital when Hearn was brought in sometime between 4:30 and 5 a.m. on September 15, 2003. When Dr. Leon initially examined Hearn, Hearn was in It

stable condition with 10 entry and exit bullet wounds.

appeared to Dr. Leon that the 10 wounds represented 5 "through and through" injuries in which the bullets had both entered and exited Hearn's body. Dr. Leon testified that the location of the

five shots that entered Hearn's body were to the right side of his cheek, his left shoulder, and in the area of his left thigh and left buttocks. The State called defendant's father, Stephen Lisle, Sr., 5

during its case-in-chief.

Lisle, Sr., testified that early on

the morning of September 15, 2003, he received a call on his home phone from his son, the defendant. Defendant was looking for the Lisle, Sr., did not give

phone number of one of his two sisters.

the number to defendant as it was 4:30 in the morning and he had to go to work that morning. Steven Metscaviz, a detective with the Rock Island police department, testified that he responded to the scene at 513 6th Avenue in Rock Island at 5 a.m. on September 15, 2003. Detective

Metscaviz found the body of Owens next to the open driver's door of a blue 1995 Ford Windstar van parked in the driveway. According to Detective Metscaviz, defendant was taken into custody at his girlfriend's house in Davenport, Iowa, nine days later. Defendant gave a statement to Detective Metscaviz and the

lead detective in this case, Dave Sullivan, after he talked to his pastor and his attorney at the police station in Rock Island. At around 6 p.m. on September 24, defendant, his counsel, and the two detectives (Metscaviz and Sullivan) were present while defendant heard and waived his rights under Miranda. Defendant

told the detectives that he had not been with Hearn or Owens on the evening of September 14 or during the early morning hours of September 15. Defendant also said he had not been with a person He said he found out that

named Korey Randle during these times.

Owens and Hearn had been shot during a telephone call he received 6

from an unnamed female.

He told the detectives that, at the time

the shooting took place, he was at his mom's house at 629 7th Street. As defendant was sitting on the front steps at that

time, a person who knows him named Darryl Hicks walked by and saw him sitting there. Earlier in the afternoon on September 14,

defendant told the investigators that he had been at Maudy Traywood's house on 6th Street where a party was being held for Steven Leonard. Owens. While at this party, defendant saw Hearn and

The detectives asked whether defendant had also seen Defendant did not know

someone called "C Rider" at this party.

who "C Rider" was, but when the detectives told him that was a name Korey Randle is known by, defendant said he knew who Randle was. Defendant did not recall whether he saw Randle at the party

at Traywood's house. On cross-examination, Detective Metscaviz acknowledged that defendant had described Owens as a close friend who spent time at defendant's house every day. The detective also acknowledged

that the police had failed to locate any weapon that could be tied to the shooting incident on September 15, 2003. Darryl Hicks testified that he knew defendant and Owens. the night Owens was shot, Hicks was walking home and saw defendant going into his mother's house on 7th Avenue. No one On

was with defendant at the time, and Hicks estimated this occurred around five minutes prior to the shooting. 7 Hicks testified that

he did not hear any shots from his house and he could not testify with certainty where the defendant was when the shots were fired. Rock Island police detective David Sullivan testified that he participated in a second interview of defendant that was conducted on June 4, 2004, after defendant and his attorney had already provided the Rock Island police with a verbatim transcript of an audiotape statement defendant previously made to his attorney on May 24, 2004. According to Detective Sullivan,

the interview on June 4 was conducted in an effort to clarify some details that were discussed in defendant's May 24 statement. However, the interview on June 4 was not transcribed, audiotaped, or videotaped. During the June 4 interview, defendant indicated

that he was, in fact, present with three other people in the driveway of 513 6th Avenue at the time Owens was killed. In

addition to Owens, the people who were in or near the minivan were the defendant, Ronald Hearn, and Randle. Detective Sullivan

proceeded to detail the contents of defendant's May and June statements, beginning with what defendant stated in his recorded statement of May 24, 2004. I. Information Defendant Provided in May Statement As Testified To By Detective Sullivan Defendant disclosed that he was picked up by Randle and Randle's little brother, Paris, at around 2 or 3 p.m. on September 14, 2003. Randle dropped defendant off at defendant's 8

mom's house on 7th Street and he stayed there for awhile before walking down to Hearn's house at 513 6th Avenue. From there,

defendant walked a half a block to Traywood's house, where a party was being held. A short time after he arrived, defendant Paris Randle asked

saw Owens and Hearn come to Traywood's house.

to buy drugs from Owens, but Owens was not able to sell him any on the spot. Owens kept a supply of drugs at the house of a

girlfriend who had recently evicted Owens from her premises. Defendant refused Owens' request to go to the girlfriend's house and retrieve Owens' stash of cocaine, after which Owens and Hearn left the party and managed to get inside the girlfriend's house to retrieve the drugs. Defendant indicated that Owens went to

Hearn's house and stashed his drugs somewhere on that property. Defendant went from the party on 6th Street to Buck's Tavern, where the police eventually came and chased away a group that was standing outside the tavern. Defendant again met up with Korey

Randle as he walked away from Buck's Tavern, and together they drove in the Windstar to defendant's mother's house. While the

two were hanging around there, at midnight or 1 a.m. on September 15, Owens and Hearn drove up in a gray Monte Carlo. Defendant

and Randle then drove the minivan to a Quick Shop store, where they intended to buy more alcohol. Hearn and Owens also went to Both

Quick Shop and the four men purchased cigars and alcohol.

vehicles were driven from Quick Shop to Angela Lee's residence on 9

9th Avenue.

Ultimately, the four men later left in the minivan According to

and drove to 513 6th Avenue, where Hearn lived.

defendant, Owens and Hearn left the Monte Carlo at Lee's residence and got in the van with the defendant and Korey Randle. Describing what took place immediately prior to the shooting, defendant said Owens received a call from someone who was ready to buy some drugs. Owens exited the van to find the

stashed cocaine and returned when he could not find the drugs in the spot he had hidden it. When Owens exited the van to try to

find the cocaine, defendant went to the side of Hearn's house to urinate. Defendant said that he was still urinating when Owens

returned to the van, cussing at Hearn about the missing drugs. Owens reached under the mat of the minivan and pulled out a gun, which he then used to shoot at Hearn. Defendant stated Hearn was Defendant had

still inside the van when Owens began shooting.

just returned to the van and jumped in the middle seat when Owens pointed the gun toward Hearn and fired a few shots. As soon as

Owens began shooting, Korey Randle, who was seated in the fully reclined front passenger seat, exited the van and ran away. Hearn got out of the van and began to wrestle with Owens, at which time Owens shot Hearn two more times. According to the

defendant, Hearn managed to gain control of the gun from Owens and, as Owens tried to get in the driver's seat of the van, Hearn shot him. Defendant said Hearn began shooting at the defendant 10

after Hearn shot Owens.

This caused defendant to flee.

He

caught up with Korey Randle and the two left the area together. II. Information Defendant Provided In June Statement As Testified To By Detective Sullivan Defendant provided further details about the shooting during his interview with the police on June 4, 2004. He indicated that

while he was with the others in the van as it was parked in Hearn's driveway, Owens and Randle were sitting in the front seats, defendant was in the middle seat and Hearn sat in the far rear seat. In the June interview, defendant mentioned the name

of the person who had called Owens' cell phone about buying drugs. Defendant described Owens as angry with Hearn after he

looked for but could not find the cocaine allegedly hidden on the property at Hearn's residence. Defendant said that even after he

left the van to urinate, he was in a position where he could see and hear what was happening inside the van. Owens was accusing

Hearn of stealing the drugs because Hearn was the only person, other than Owens, who knew where the drugs had been hidden. Detective Sullivan continued his testimony by noting that defendant was asked specifically if anyone other than the four people in the minivan were in the area at the time of the shooting, to which defendant indicated the only other person nearby was a person he called "Molina." Molina was at the park Defendant said that

waiting for Owens to deliver drugs to him. 11

he thought two or possibly three shots were fired while Owens and Hearn were inside the van and another two shots were fired outside the van. Once Owens and Hearn were outside the van

wrestling, Hearn obtained control over the gun and pursued Owens around the van from the passenger side to the driver's door. Hearn came up from behind Owens just before shooting Owens in the head at close range. Defendant told the police that Hearn

dropped the gun he used to shoot Owens, pulled a different gun, and started to shoot at defendant and Korey Randle. When

Detective Sullivan asked defendant how Randle could have been shot at by Hearn when he had fled as soon as the first shot was fired, defendant stated that he was the only one Hearn was shooting at after Owens had been shot. Sullivan asked defendant

if he knew who Ricky Childs was and whether Childs was present at the time of the shooting. Defendant said he knew Childs, but

that Childs was not present. On cross-examination, Detective Sullivan conceded that defendant had, at no time during any of his statements, admitted to shooting anyone. The detective testified that, despite the

efforts by his department, the police were unable to find Korey Randle. Detective Sullivan also admitted that the police have

never discovered a weapon that could be tied to this case. III. Further Evidence Admitted At Trial Dr. Larry Blum testified that he is a licensed physician 12

whose specialization is in forensic pathology.

He was declared

an expert in his field and testified that he performed the autopsy on Owens. Dr. Blum stated that Owens died as a result of

a single gunshot that entered his brain after passing through his right ear. In the doctor's opinion, the shot was fired from

within inches of Owens' ear and death would have resulted rapidly, if not immediately, after the bullet struck. Christopher Kozel, a forensic scientist employed by the Illinois State Police, testified as an expert in firearm and tool marker identification. Kozel received a number of clothing items He identified

that were worn by Hearn at the time he was shot.

certain holes in the jacket Hearn wore as having been caused by bullets that struck the jacket in the back right shoulder, and two places where the initial entry point was through the interior fabric of the jacket. Each of these three entry points

manifested gunpowder residue, indicating a close-range firing of the gun. Kozel gave his opinion regarding the type of gun that he determined was consistent with the rifling characteristics of the two bullets that were recovered in this case. According to

Kozel, the pattern and directions of the grooves on the bullets matched those that are made by a semiautomatic pistol manufactured by "High Point." Kozel testified that, in his

experience, the shells that are ejected from the "High Point" 13

brand 9-millimeter pistol always eject to the right side.

Kozel

confirmed that he had also made a determination that the six shells found at the crime scene matched each other and were all fired from the same gun. On cross-examination, Kozel testified that he did not perform tests on the sleeves or cuff areas of Hearn's jacket for gun powder residue, but that a colleague of his had. While Kozel

matched all of the shell casings and bullets submitted to him to a single 9-millimeter pistol, he could not testify that all of the bullet wounds Hearn suffered were caused by a 9-millimeter gun. Robert Berk, also a forensic scientist employed by the Illinois State Police, testified that his expertise is in the area of analyzing trace evidence. His testing on the cuff

portion of the left sleeve of Ronald Hearn's jacket led Berk to conclude that gunshot residue was present on that part of the jacket. This meant that Hearn's cuff was "in the environment of

a weapon" when the weapon was fired, and could have been the result of Hearn discharging a weapon or having his left hand close to a gun when someone else fired it. Berk was able to

conclude that no gunshot residue was present on either of the sleeves of the jacket worn by Owens. When the jury trial resumed on September 29, 2004, Detective Metscaviz was recalled to the stand. 14 His testimony was limited

to an interaction that he observed between defendant and Korey Randle. This interaction took place while Randle was being

interviewed by Detective Metscaviz in a room at the county jail. During the interview with Randle, the defendant, who had been arrested about a month earlier, was walking by the interview room and made a statement that Detective Metscaviz was able to hear. Looking at Randle, defendant said, "Yo, man. trying to frame me." Those guys are

Metscaviz interpreted that defendant was

directing that comment at the officer or to his department in general. Then, looking in the direction of the detective,

defendant said, "What are you doing talking to those guys?" Before moving out of the view of Randle and Detective Metscaviz, defendant raised his hands and moved a forefinger across his throat. Defendant's movement was observable to Randle.

Angela Lee was called to testify and noted that she had been asleep at her home on 9th Avenue in Rock Island early in the morning on September 15, 2003, when her nephew, Ronald Hearn, woke her up by yelling her name from just outside the back door to her house. She turned over on the couch to look toward the Hearn

back door and saw Hearn leaning against the doorway. stated he had been shot.

After she helped her nephew get outside

to wait for the emergency personnel to arrive, she began asking Hearn who shot him. At first Hearn told Lee, "Roy shot," but

when Lee asked him if he meant Roy was the shooter, Hearn said 15

no, and repeated the words, "Roy shot."

When Lee asked Hearn to

tell her "who did this to [him]," Hearn pulled her close to him and said the words, "Steve, and Korey was with him." Lee

testified that her nephew made the statements before any officers arrived at her house. Defendant called Steve Lisle, Sr., as his first witness. Lisle, Sr., testified that defendant and Owens had been good friends for at least six years, that they were together all the time, and that they spent many nights at the same house. Lisle,

Sr., could not think of any reason his son would have had to shoot Owens. Lisle, Sr., also denied that he had told anyone

that defendant had asked for the phone number of the sister that lives in Indianapolis, Indiana, when defendant called Lisle, Sr., at 4:30 a.m. on the morning Owens was shot. Defendant's mother, Jessie Lisle, testified that she was at her home on a corner lot at 7th Street and 7th Avenue, throughout the night on September 14. Defendant came to and left the house Jessie testified that

a number of times throughout the night.

she was still awake at around 3:40 a.m. and sitting on her front porch when she heard what sounded like firecrackers. Before she

could place a call to try to reach her son, she saw defendant calmly walking by himself toward the house. She told defendant

not to be returning with Owens to the house later that night, since it would wake her up. Defendant assured her that he would 16

not be coming back to the house that night and she had no further contact with him the rest of the night. After defendant rested with no further witnesses being called, the State called Detective Metscaviz as a rebuttal witness. The detective testified that, while he was questioning

Steve Lisle, Sr., and Jessie Lisle at Jessie's house on 7th Street on the day the shooting, Lisle, Sr., stated that at approximately 4:30 that morning defendant had placed two calls to him. Lisle, Sr., indicated that defendant was asking for the

phone number of Lisle, Sr.'s daughter, Steva, who lived in Indianapolis. The detective testified that Lisle, Sr., also said

defendant had told him that he needed Steva's phone number because he was going to have to leave town. After this

testimony, both sides rested and the trial court denied defendant's renewed motion for a directed verdict. After deliberating for parts of two days, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and the charge of aggravated battery. Following a sentencing hearing on December

10, 2004, the trial court sentenced defendant to terms of 27 and 10 years' imprisonment, specifically finding that the sentences were required to run consecutively to one another. followed. ANALYSIS Defendant raises three issues on appeal. 17 First, defendant This appeal

contends that the trial court erred in allowing Angela Lee to testify that Ronald Hearn told her that defendant was the one who shot him. Defendant claims that it was reversible error to find

Hearn's statement admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. Second, defendant further argues

that allowing Lee to testify as to what Hearn said violated his federal and state constitutional rights to confront witnesses against him, as well as the principles set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004). Finally, defendant argues that evidence adduced at trial

was insufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the murder of LaRoy Owens. I. Excited Utterance Angela Lee testified that Ronald Hearn identified defendant as the person who shot him. Defendant claims Lee's testimony

should not have been admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule and, therefore, Lee's testimony should have been excluded as inadmissible hearsay. For a hearsay statement to be admissible under the spontaneous declaration or excited utterance exception: (1) there must be an occurrence sufficiently startling to produce a spontaneous and unreflecting statement; (2) there must be an absence of time for the declarant to fabricate the statement; and (3) the statement must relate to the circumstances of the 18

occurrence. (1991).

People v. Edwards, 144 Ill. 2d 108, 579 N.E.2d 336

In determining whether a hearsay statement is admissible

under the spontaneous declaration exception, courts employ a totality of the circumstances analysis. Ill. 2d 306, 739 N.E.2d 455 (2000). People v. Williams, 193

This analysis involves the

consideration of several factors, including time, the nature of the event, the mental and physical condition of the declarant, and the presence or absence of self-interest. 141 Ill. 2d 323, 566 N.E.2d 259 (1990). The fact that a declarant's statement is made at the first opportunity to speak supports a finding of spontaneity (People v. Gacho, 122 Ill. 2d 221, 522 N.E.2d 1146 (1988)), but a declarant may make a spontaneous declaration to a person even after having spoken previously to another. House, 141 Ill. 2d at 386. People v. House,

"Although a statement made in response to persistent interrogation might not be admitted under the spontaneous declaration exception [citation], the fact that a statement was made in response to a question does not necessarily destroy spontaneity." Williams, 193 Ill.2d at 353, citing People v. No one factor is

Smith, 152 Ill. 2d 229, 604 N.E.2d 858 (1992). dispositive. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d at 353.

The time factor has been described as an elusive factor whose significance will vary with the facts of each case. 141 Ill. 2d at 382. House,

"[T]he period of time that may pass without 19

effecting the admissibility of a statement under the spontaneous declaration exception varies greatly." 353. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d at

In People v. Gacho, a statement made 6

Download People v. Lisle.pdf