People v. Beasley

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2008 » People v. Beasley

People v. Beasley

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-07-0474 Rel

Case Date: 08/22/2008

Preview:Filed 8/22/08

NO. 4-07-0474 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AARON M. BEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

) Appeal from ) Circuit Court of ) Macon County ) No. 06CF1527 ) ) Honorable ) James R. Coryell, ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court: A jury found defendant, Aaron M. Beasley, guilty of unlawful possession of more than 400 grams but less than 900 grams of a substance containing cocaine with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(C) (West 2006)). The trial court sen-

tenced defendant to 12 years' imprisonment, which was the minimum sentence under the statute. On appeal, defendant challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence and, in the alternative, raises several arguments concerning the fairness of his trial. Though

we find the evidence sufficient, we reverse and remand for a new trial. I. BACKGROUND A. Defendant's History and Living Circumstances Defendant, age 26 at the time of the offense, was a community-college student who worked several temp-service jobs. Prior to the conviction at issue here, defendant had never been

charged with a crime as an adult.

Defendant had one juvenile

conviction for possession of 10 to 30 grams of cannabis, for which he received nine months' supervision. Defendant split his place of residence between his parents' home at 1359 East Condit in Decatur, Illinois, and the apartment of his girlfriend, Shanitera Walker. Living at 1359

Condit were defendant's mother (Roni), father (Calvin), sister (Amanda), and his toddler son, custody of whom he shared with Shanitera. According to those living in the house, defendant's

bedroom was not very private; the bedroom door could not be locked and the bedroom closet was used as a household receptacle, storing other family members' clothes, space heaters, and irons. Defendant's older brother, Shawn Beasley, who is also the codefendant in this case, did not live at 1359 Condit but, according to Roni, visited two to three times per week for several hours at a time. defendant's bedroom. B. The Instant Crime On Monday, June 5, 2006, while conducting a drug investigation against Shawn, Decatur police officers served a warrant on Shawn's apartment on 25th Street in Decatur. Then, Before he moved out, Shawn had shared

pursuant to information that Shawn was possibly storing cocaine at 1359 Condit, Decatur police officer James Root directed several officers to go to the Beasleys' family home. - 2 Roni gave

the police permission to search the house. The police found two safes in defendant's bedroom closet. One of the safes was unlocked and "emitted the aroma of The safe contained a black foam liner that

cocaine" when opened.

was later determined to contain cocaine residue and a piece of paper that listed approximately 15 first names and initials with numbers ranging from 80 to 1,000 next to the names. Eighty

dollars is the typical price for a gram of cocaine; the other numbers also matched typical prices for common sale quantities of cocaine. The initials of defendant, "A.B.," and the initials of Officer Root opined that

Shawn, "S.B.," were both on the list.

this list was a drug record, but the handwriting in the list was never compared to the handwriting of Shawn or defendant. handle of the safe contained Shawn's fingerprints. The

The inside

lid of the safe contained defendant's left-thumb fingerprint. The age of the prints could not be determined. When asked at

trial why his fingerprints may have been on the inside lid of the safe, defendant answered: "Uh--I had to have probably just moved it out of the way while looking for something else. But, other than that, I would not know. *** [Maybe] the lid was up or it was laid down." Also in defendant's bedroom, police found a pair of latex gloves on top of a small refrigerator. - 3 In a small trash

can next to the refrigerator, police found sandwich bags that had the corners cut (consistent with packaging smaller quantities of cocaine). According to Amanda, both Shawn and defendant had been

home the day before the search, but only Shawn stayed overnight and slept in defendant's bedroom. Before that, defendant had

been on a weekend trip with Shanitera in St. Louis. In the basement crawl space, police found an "Old Navy" shopping bag and another safe. Roni testified the bag belonged

to her, she had used it to store gardening supplies, and she had last seen it a week prior to the search. In the shopping bag,

police found nearly $70,000 worth of cocaine, which was further contained in several sandwich bags. In the safe, which was

locked and subsequently pried open by police, police found baking soda, which is often used as a cutting agent for cocaine, and a white plastic container containing wet wipes. Police found

Shawn's fingerprints on the white plastic container but did not submit the baking soda box for testing. Defendant testified that

he had seen a safe in the basement within the last year but did not know which of the three safes found in the search it had been. space. C. Investigation Against Defendant On June 6, 2006, the day after the search, defendant voluntarily went to the police station for questioning. - 4 DefenWhen defendant saw the safe, it was not in the crawl

dant told police that Shawn had a key to the family home at 1359 Condit. Shawn periodically lived at 1359 Condit and stored Defendant often stayed over at

things in defendant's bedroom.

his girlfriend Shanitera's apartment and did not know anything about the safe, the gloves, or the sandwich bags found in his bedroom. Defendant had seen a safe in the basement approximately

a year ago. On August 15, 2006, Shanitera saw defendant with another woman at the movie theater. in a dispute. Defendant and Shanitera got

The police arrived and arrested Shanitera for While incarcerated, Shanitera contacted the Shanitera

domestic battery.

sheriff's department to talk to them about defendant.

told police that, following the June 2006 investigation, defendant told her that he would be staying with her for awhile because the police had found the drugs at his parents' house. After Shanitera implicated defendant in the instant drug case, the State dropped the domestic-battery charges against her. In October 2006, the State charged both defendant and Shawn with unlawful possession of more than 400 grams but less than 900 grams of a substance containing cocaine with intent to deliver. D. Trial At trial in early February 2007, Shanitera testified that defendant had told her that the drugs confiscated in the - 5 -

June 2006 search belonged to him and his brother and that he knew about the safe in the bedroom. Shanitera testified that she was During

no longer upset with defendant at the time of trial.

cross-examination, Shanitera admitted that she had saved newspaper clippings about the investigation, which mentioned the safe in the bedroom. Shanitera also revealed that she was released

from jail on the domestic-battery charges the very same day she decided to speak to police regarding the instant drug case. Shanitera also stated that she was trying to recover custody of the son that she shared with defendant from the Beasley family. According to defendant, he never told Shanitera that the drugs were his. He only told her what he had learned of the Defendant testified that, when

investigation through the police.

he and Shanitera began to fight, Shanitera told him she would make his life a "living hell." According to defendant's sister

Amanda, Shanitera called the Beasley residence in a harassing manner on many occasions. According to Amanda, Shanitera ex-

pressed her feelings that defendant had "done her wrong" and stated, "that's okay cause I'm coming out of jail, and Aaron will be going in." During closing argument, the defense noted that the State never bothered to have several items checked for fingerprints, such as the box of baking soda found in the basement safe, or the list of names found in the bedroom safe. - 6 In rebut-

tal, the State responded: "[T]hey examined the plastic container which was sitting right beside the baking soda, but yet, this baking soda somehow becomes a huge glaring gap. *** Well, if this had been sent in and the defendant's print would have been on this, we would have just as much of a story that was concocted as there was--" The defense objected to the implication that the defense was concocting stories. The court replied: "He didn't say the

defense concocted the story. *** Overruled."

He said the story was concocted.

The State went on to provide a hypothetical

where, if it had in fact tested the box of baking soda for prints and the results had come back with defendant's prints on the box, then it would not be "hard" for defendant to "refute the physical evidence" by saying his prints were on the box because he had been "baking cookies." The following exchange then took place

regarding the absence of fingerprints on certain items: "STATE: You, also, learned that evidence can be requested to be sent to the [l]ab for examination. There was no request [by defen-

dant] to do so. DEFENSE: Objection as to this line of argument which shifts the burden - 7 -

impermissibly. THE COURT: Overruled. STATE: If *** it's unconscionable on the part of [the State,] it's just as unconscionable on the part of the defense. So, if you

want something tested, you can get it tested. You can't sit back and say, 'Well, nobody tested it; therefore, the evidence fails.'" The jury received instructions on accountability. During jury deliberations, the jury sent the court a note, which read: "Could we have a more clear clarification of [i]f [sic] you know about a crime being committed but do nothing and later get arrested as a participant in the crime is that a sign of guilt." The defense suggested that the answer should be, "no, it is not." Instead, the trial court told the jurors: "You must rely on the instructions you have already been given." Following deliberations, all 12 jurors signed the guilty verdict, including Vernard Fuller. When the court polled

the jury, each juror except Fuller answered only with a "yes." When the court polled Fuller, the following exchange took place: "THE COURT: Mr. Fuller, is this your - 8 -

Download People v. Beasley.pdf