People v. Martin

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 3rd District Appellate » 2010 » People v. Martin

People v. Martin

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-09-0189 Rel

Case Date: 04/21/2010

Preview:No. 3-09-0189 ______________________________________________________________________________ Filed April 21, 2010 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2010 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, ) Will County Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 07-CF-1071 ) DAVID MARTIN, ) Honorable ) Richard Schoenstedt, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ Modified Upon Denial of Petition for Rehearing JUSTICE McDADE delivered the opinion of the court: ______________________________________________________________________________ The State charged defendant, David Martin, with attempt (residential arson) and reckless conduct. Following a bench trial, the circuit court of Will County found defendant not guilty of attempt (residential arson) and guilty of reckless conduct. The trial court denied defendant's motions to reconsider, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and for a new trial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. BACKGROUND The reckless conduct charge alleged that defendant, acting in a reckless manner, knowingly removed end caps to natural gas lines in the dwelling place of Christopher Campbell in such a manner to endanger the bodily safety of Christopher Campbell. 1 )

Campbell testified at defendant's trial that he lived in an apartment above a pizza restaurant and that defendant was his landlord. On the morning in question Campbell's roommate woke him at approximately 6:30 a.m. Campbell smelled natural gas. He went to a set of two gas meters on the west side of the building and turned off the valve he thought controlled the gas for the restaurant. Campbell returned to bed. He woke several hours later and still smelled natural gas. He returned to the gas meters and turned off the second gas valve. Sometime later that morning, Campbell knocked on the door to the restaurant. In response he heard a voice he recognized as defendant's voice. Campbell left the apartment and returned between a half-hour and two hours later. When he returned, he met an employee, Mitchell, and they entered the restaurant because Campbell believed that the smell of natural gas indicated that "something was disconnected." Campbell went to the rear of the restaurant where the furnace and water heater are located. He testified that, prior to entering with Mitchell, he had not been in the restaurant either the night before or in the morning of the day question. He also had not seen anyone else in the restaurant and did not actually see defendant there at all that day. He discovered gas pipes disconnected from the furnace and water heater. Specifically, he saw what he believed to be three-quarter-inch gas pipe for the furnace and water heater. He looked for where the pipe appeared to connect and he reconnected them using his own tools. Campbell then turned the gas back on and relit the furnace and heater. Nicholas Martin, defendant's son, testified that his father owned the pizza restaurant in Joliet. In the morning of the day in question he and his sister picked their father up from the restaurant. Nicholas testified that when he arrived at the restaurant, he found his father sleeping inside. He drove his father to the father's home in New Lenox. While returning to Joliet,

2

Nicholas stopped at a gas station and spoke to a police officer. He told the officer that his father was attempting to commit arson at the restaurant whereupon the officer instructed Nicholas to dial 9-1-1. Nicholas testified that he lied to the officer. Nicholas went to the restaurant and spoke to police. He later went to the Joliet police department and gave police a videotaped statement. The trial court ruled that portions of the statement were inadmissible and that portions were admissible into evidence. In his videotaped statement, Nicholas told police that he and his sister went to pick up their father from the restaurant. Nicholas found his father to be intoxicated. He had to help his father to the car and lay him in the back seat. On the videotape Nicholas states that when they arrived at his father's home, Nicholas had to help his father out of the car. He also states that this father told him and his sister not to return to the restaurant because "it was going to go ka-boom." Nicholas stated to police that he asked his father about the people in the building, to which his father replied that he would get rid of them, too. When police asked Nicholas to explain what his father meant, he responded: "I can't remember directly but because he must have because [sic] I knew it was involved with gas lines, so I don't think that I inferred that, but somehow I knew going there that it was something to do with gas." In the statement, Nicholas told police that when he left his father in New Lenox, Nicholas went to a friend's house for advice. At trial, Nicholas testified that when he picked his father up it was the first time he had been to the restaurant that day. After he dropped his father off at home, he allegedly went to his friend's house, where she helped him fabricate the story he later gave police. He then returned to the restaurant and, at some point, called police and told them that his father planned to commit

3

arson at the restaurant. Nicholas's friend testified at trial that Nicholas contacted her the day before she testified and asked her to testify that he told her he made up the story about arson to get back at his father. Nicholas also testified at trial that although he recalled giving the statement, and that he lied, he did not recall specifically telling police that he had difficulty waking his father, that he had to help his father to the car, that his father appeared to be intoxicated, or that he had any conversation with his father that day. He did not recall telling police that he asked about the tenants or that his father told him that he would get rid of the people in the building. Nor did Nicholas recall telling police that anything "involved the gas lines." Officer John Williams of the Joliet police department testified that he responded to the restaurant based on a report of a building filling with natural gas. He spoke to Nicholas at the restaurant. When asked at trial whether Nicholas told him that Nicholas's father planned to commit arson, Williams responded "not in those words." Williams later arrested defendant. Detective Tim Powers spoke to Campbell. Campbell showed Powers where he had found four end caps lying on the ground near the furnace and water heater. Another officer testified that defendant appeared intoxicated at the jail. Captain Thomas Douglas with the Joliet fire department testified that he responded to the restaurant on the day in question. He turned off the gas to the oven and ventilated the building, but he did not inspect the water heater. Defendant moved for a directed verdict and the trial court denied the motion. Following closing arguments, the trial court found that Campbell had turned off both gas lines and later went to the area of the furnace and water heater, where he found end caps lying on the floor.

4

The court found that Campbell replaced the end caps and pipes. The court found that the end caps were removed intentionally and that natural gas was escaping into the building and created a dangerous situation. It based its finding in part on its own experience and observation that, because Campbell was able to simply screw the end caps back on, the end caps, "weren't broken off, rusted off, cut off, or whatever." The court concluded that defendant removed the end caps endangering the bodily safety of Christopher Campbell. The court ruled that the State failed to prove defendant committed attempt (residential arson) but did prove defendant guilty of reckless conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting Nicholas's statement, recorded in the videotaped interview with police, as substantive evidence pursuant to section 115-10.1(c)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-10.1(c)(2) (West 2006)). Section 115-10.1(c)(2) reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "In all criminal cases, evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if (a) the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing or trial, and (b) the witness is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and (c) the statement

Download People v. Martin.pdf