Find Legal Information

JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the opinion of the court:

A jury acquitted defendant, Joseph A. Wharton, of homeinvasion (720 ILCS 5/12-11 (West 1998)) but deadlocked on theremaining two counts, armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a) (West1998)) and residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 1998)). The trial court entered a judgment of acquittal on the count ofhome invasion and declared a mistrial on the other two counts. Invoking collateral estoppel and double jeopardy, defendant fileda motion to bar the State from reprosecuting him for the allegedarmed robbery and residential burglary. The trial court deniedthe motion, and, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(f)(188 Ill. 2d R. 604(f)), defendant appeals from that ruling. Wereverse.

On February 2, 2000, the State filed three countsagainst defendant, numbered V, VI, and VII. Defendant pleadednot guilty to all three counts. Count V (home invasion) stated:

"[O]n or about November 28, 1999, in theCounty of Macon, Illinois, [defendant] didcommit the offense of HOME INVASION, [i]nthat said defendant, not a peace officeracting in the line of duty, knowingly, andwithout authority, entered the dwelling ofDarin Hill and James Foreman, located at 375Olympic Lane #96, Decatur, Macon County,Illinois, knowing or having reason to knowDarin Hill and James Foreman to be presentwithin that dwelling and intentionally causedinjury to Darin Hill in that said defendantstruck Darin Hill in the head with a gun."

Count VI (armed robbery) stated:

"[O]n or about November 28, 1999, in theCounty of Macon, Illinois, [defendant] didcommit the offense of ARMED ROBBERY, [i]nthat said defendant, while armed with a dangerous weapon, a gun, took property[,] beinga cellular [tele]phone, pager, and U.S.[c]urrency, from the presence of Darin Hilland James Foreman, by threatening the imminent use of force."

Count VII (residential burglary) stated:

"[O]n or about November 28, 1999, in theCounty of Macon, Illinois, [defendant] didcommit the offense of RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY,[i]n that said defendant knowingly, and without authority, entered into the dwellingplace of Darin Hill and James Foreman, located at 375 Olympic Lane #96, Decatur, MaconCounty, Illinois, with intent to committherein a theft."

The trial court read a statement of the case to theprospective jurors, paraphrasing the three counts quoted above. In stating the charge of home invasion, the trial court said: "It is alleged *** that *** [d]efendant *** intentionally causedinjury to Darin Hill in that he struck Darin Hill in the headwith a gun." During his opening statement, the prosecutor saidthere would be evidence that an intruder "struck [Darin Hill] inthe back of the head with what he believed to be a gun."

The trial lasted three days, May 17, 18, and 19, 2000. The State's first witness was Darin Hill, 19 years old. Hetestified that on November 28, 1999, he resided in apartment No.96 at 375 Olympic Lane. He shared the apartment with JamesForeman. The apartment had a sunken living room, and upstairsthere were two bedrooms, his and James's. At approximately 6p.m., Darin and his girlfriend, Tiffany McQueen, arrived at theapartment and watched television, alone, in the living room, forabout two hours. At approximately 8 p.m., James arrived and wentto his bedroom. Darin and Tiffany stayed in the living room fora couple more hours, watching television.

Darin testified that at approximately 10 or 10:30 p.m.,there was a knock on the door upstairs. He went upstairs and puthis eye to the peephole. Seeing no one and suspecting a prank,he opened the door and looked into the hall. He caught a glimpseof someone in a ski mask and coat running around the corner. Themask was a dark color, perhaps blue. "A split second" later,this person smashed him in the nose with what Darin believed wasa gun (although he "really [did not] know what [he] got hitwith," it happened so fast). Darin spun around and bent over,covering his nose, and as he ran into the apartment, the assailant pursued him and hit him on the back of the head. Darin'sshoulder collided with James's bedroom door, and he fell to thefloor, unconscious.

When Darin awoke, blood was running from his nose andthe back of his head onto the carpet. He testified he saw Jameslying face down on his bed and Tiffany getting up from his ownbed. Darin asked if "they" were gone. Receiving no response, hestaggered to his feet, went to a bathroom, and wiped the bloodoff his face. Then he looked for a telephone. The one in thedining room was ripped out of the wall. Tiffany's cellulartelephone was missing from her purse, and James's was missingfrom his bedroom. Darin found his own cellular telephone in hisbedroom and called his brother. When the prosecutor asked Darinwhy he did not call the police, he said he did not know. Hisbrother drove him to the emergency room, where there was a policeofficer, and Darin told the officer of the robbery. The wound onthe back of Darin's head required stitches. He also had aconcussion, broken nose, and swollen hand.

Darin admitted on the stand that he told the police "adifferent story" "[f]rom what [had] really happened." He falselytold the police officer that Tiffany and James were not presentin the apartment during the robbery. He was afraid if he revealed Tiffany was there, her parents would not let her come overany more. He did not know why he had lied about James. He alsotold the officer, incorrectly, that he was standing in the hall,unlocking the door, when the assailant approached him from behindand hit him on the back of the head.

The day after the robbery, when Darin returned to hisapartment, he discovered that not only the cellular telephonesbut also his pager, his keys, and the "face" to his compact-discplayer and car stereo were missing. Two weeks later, he told theDecatur police precisely what had happened, including who was inthe apartment when the robbers entered.

Darin testified he never gave defendant permission toenter his apartment and he did not even know him. He had nopersonal knowledge that the assailant who entered his apartmenton November 28 was indeed defendant, because "[t]he only person[he] saw had a mask on" and he never heard the assailant speak. He did not know Franklin Small, either (a name that would emergeagain in the trial). Darin testified, however, that he wasacquainted with James's friend, Cory Zimmer, who had been to theapartment three times. Darin and James frequently threw partiesin their apartment.

Tiffany McQueen, 19 years old, testified that whenDarin went upstairs from the living room to answer the door, sheheard a commotion, as if someone were "being thrown into the walland pushed around," and Darin saying, "Stop it!" The stairwayhad only three or four steps. She stood on the couch to see whatwas happening. At the top of the stairs, a "[s]hort, kind ofskinny" man in a white stocking cap pointed a handgun at herface. She sat down, and he descended the stairs and said, "Comewith me." She glanced up at him quickly and looked back down. He had no ski mask on. Scared for her life, she noticed onlythat he had light-colored eyebrows--"[n]ot brown, but not blond." When she did not immediately stand, he said move or he wouldshoot.

They went upstairs, she first and he behind her. Hetold her to go to the "back bedroom" (Darin's bedroom) and warnedher, "[D]on't say anything, don't move[,] or I will hurt you." On the way to the bedroom, she saw Darin lying on the floor, byJames's door, and a man crouching over him with his knee in hisback and pointing a gun at the back of his head. She steppedover Darin.

As Tiffany lay on Darin's bed, someone called out,"Cory, are you all right?" She testified she did not recognizethat voice. Right before the intruders departed, one of themsaid, "I should kill one of you mother-fuckers," and the mansounded like Cory Zimmer. (She had encountered Cory a couple oftimes in the past, when he came with James to her parents'house.) The bed was by a window, and she heard the footfalls oftwo or more people running on the sidewalk outside. Then Darincame into the bedroom, blood streaming down his neck.

According to Tiffany, "all [three] of our cell[ular][tele]phones were gone" after the robbery: hers, Darin's, andJames's. Darin's keys were gone, too, but she used a spare setto drive Darin's Blazer to her parents' house. A detective ofthe Decatur police department, Patrick Campbell, showed her somephotographs, but she did not recognize anyone in them. James Foreman, 21 years old, testified he arrived atthe apartment at 9 p.m. Soon afterward, he went to his bedroomand got ready for bed because he had to work the next day. As helay in bed, watching television, he heard wrestling and commotionin the apartment. A body struck his bedroom door. He grabbed abaseball bat, opened the door, and saw two men in the apartment. One of them, wearing a ski mask, pointed a handgun at his faceand told him to lie facedown on the bed. James obeyed. Then,shoving the handgun into the back of his head, the man said,"Give me your money," or words to that effect. James told him itwas on his dresser, in the closet. The man snatched up the cash(no more than $200, according to James) and left the bedroom. ToJames's knowledge, no other money was anywhere else in theapartment.

James testified he heard a name, "'Cory, Cory[,]'twice[,] and then someone said[,] 'I will kill one of you mother-fuckers.'" He recognized none of the voices, however, and knewmore than one person named Cory, including Cory Zimmer. None ofthe Corys, other than his friend, Cory Zimmer, had ever been tothe apartment. Cory Zimmer had been to the apartment 5 to 10times, but on November 28, 1999, he had no authority to be there. James had no knowledge that Cory Zimmer was one of the intruders. He did not know Franklin Small, Gary Fischer, or defendant. OnDecember 7, 1999, James told Campbell that the man in the skimask might have been black, because the neck and the skin visiblethrough the eye holes appeared to be dark, but because theapartment was dark, James was uncertain. He estimated the man tobe 5 feet 10 inches to 6 feet tall and to weigh 160 to 190pounds.

Jason Boesdorfer, a detective of the Decatur policedepartment, testified that at 12:03 a.m. on November 29, 1999, hewent to Decatur Memorial Hospital to speak with the victim of abattery. The victim, Darin Hill, had a laceration on the back ofhis head and on his left hand. Boesdorfer photographed theinjuries. With Darin's consent, he searched the apartment andsaw blood on the carpet. Boesdorfer described Olympic Village asan apartment complex with a main road running through it, northand south. East and west, off this road, there were parkinglots, and before the road dead-ended, it turned west.

Donna Scott testified that defendant was her cousin andCory Zimmer was her ex-boyfriend. At approximately 2 p.m. onNovember 28, 1999 (when she and Cory were still together), Corypicked her up at her mother's trailer in his maroon Capriceautomobile. Because he had been drinking, she drove. Afterdriving around Decatur and discussing their plans for the day,they stopped at the house of Gary Wharton, another of her cousinsand defendant's brother. They went inside and visited for acouple of hours. Defendant, Gary Wharton, and Amanda Russellwere there. As she sat in another room with Amanda, Donna heardCory ask defendant if he wanted to rob Cory's cousin, JamesForeman. She did not hear defendant's reply.

Donna testified that she, defendant, and Cory left GaryWharton's house in Cory's car: she in the driver's seat, Cory inthe front, and defendant in the back. Cory made her drive. Shefelt she had no choice because he had beaten her in the past("[b]asically[,] all the time") and would not hesitate to beather again and now that she was pregnant with his child, she"[didn't] really feel like getting hit on." Defendant directedher to Franklin Small's house. On the way, Cory and defendantspoke further of robbing James, including where to park and howto ascertain whether he was home. They arrived at Franklin'shouse at 9 or 10 p.m. Defendant got out of the car and returned,15 minutes later, with Franklin, who climbed into the backseatwith defendant. All three of these men, Donna testified, werewhite.

From Franklin's, they went to Olympic Village. Donnatestified they drove through the main entrance of Olympic Villageand into a parking lot, looking for James's car. Cory, sittingbeside her in the front, had a handgun. The three men agreed toa division of labor. Defendant said he would "get the[tele]phones." Cory said "he would go in and whoever was at thedoor[,] he'd hit them and he'd get the money." Franklin said hewould "hold up the other people." All three had stocking capsthat they could pull down over their faces--although she neveractually saw them put the stocking caps on. Donna believedFranklin's cap was white and Cory's and defendant's caps wereblack, but she was unsure. Cory's cap had holes in it, like aski mask, and defendant's cap "was like a Halloween mask."

Donna testified that when they found James Foreman'scar, she parked on a dead-end road in a residential area and thethree men got out, taking their stocking caps with them. Ten tofifteen minutes later, they came running back to Cory's car--Coryand Franklin first and, a moment later, defendant. Defendantremarked that "[t]here was a girl in there and that he told herto shut up." Cory returned with a fat wad of cash in his handsand said he had gotten it from James. Cory said "[h]e held thegun up to his head and Jimmy Foreman tried to hit him back with abaseball bat and he told him to get on the bed and give him themoney." Donna drove them back to Gary Wharton's house. She saw"cell[ular] [tele]phones, pagers, [and] a walkie-talkie" in thecar.

She testified that when the men got out of the car atGary Wharton's house, she saw that all three of them, not justCory, had handguns. The three split up the money that Cory had,taking $850 apiece. To her knowledge, Cory did not have themoney prior to robbing James's apartment. She had been with himsince 2 p.m. that day. The three men decided to throw thecellular telephones into the lake.

During direct and cross-examination, Donna admittedgiving the police several false versions of the facts beforefinally telling them the truth. She testified Cory had coercedher to lie, threatening to beat her and to "take [defendant]down" with him if he went to prison. On December 1, 1999, whenCory dropped her off at the police station, she told Campbellwhat Cory had commanded her to say, i.e., that she drove byJames's apartment two or three times on November 28, 1999, butdid not stop. Then she told Campbell that she and Cory went outto dinner on November 28 and she knew nothing of the robbery. OnDecember 7, 1999, she falsely told Campbell that on November 28she and Cory went to her aunt Nancy's house and before and aftergoing there, passed by James's apartment but did not stop becausehis car was gone and there were no lights on. Then she toldCampbell that she and Cory went to the house of a friend, HeatherHurt, and returned home at 12:30 a.m. on November 29. Shetestified that none of those stories was true.

Donna testified that on December 21, 1999, when shepersisted in her earlier statements, the police arrested her forobstruction of justice and jailed her. In jail, she gave Campbell a written statement implicating Cory and herself in therobbery. At some point, she falsely told the police that GaryFisher also had participated in the robbery. On January 3, 2000,she was released from jail, on bond, and two days later, went toCory's lawyer's office, where--at Cory's urging--she signed awritten statement that defendant alone was guilty of the robberyand Cory had nothing to do with it. On January 31, 2000, in aseparate trial, Donna admitted that the statement she had givenCory's lawyer "was full of lies."

She testified she had pleaded guilty to the charge ofobstructing justice but had not yet been sentenced. In returnfor her "testify[ing] truthfully" in this case, the State hadagreed not to oppose probation. Cory was out of jail on bond inJanuary 2000, but Donna "had him put in jail sometime in February."

The State rested, and defendant moved for a directedverdict on all counts. "I have no argument on it other than [to]make that motion," defense counsel said. The trial court deniedthe motion, and defendant called his first witness, TabbathaHall, 17 years old. Tabbatha testified that Franklin Small hadbeen her boyfriend for six months and "[a]t Thanksgiving time" in1999 he lived with her at her mother's and stepfather's house. Because she used to jot everything down in a diary, she wasconfident that Franklin was "with [her] the whole day" on November 28, 1999. At 9:15 p.m. on November 28, Franklin was at hismother's house, and Tabbatha drove her mother's car there to pickhim up. Crystal Ellis and Autumn Murrell rode along. FromFranklin's mother's house, they went to pick up a friend namedJeremiah and proceeded to Hess Park, where they swung on theswings. They stayed at Hess Park only 10 to 15 minutes becauseAutumn paged her. At 10 or 10:15 p.m., Tabbatha went home totelephone Autumn, who requested that Tabbatha pick her up at theSubway restaurant. At 10:30 p.m., Tabbatha, Crystal, and shewent to Subway, picked up Autumn, and returned to Tabbatha'shouse at 10:45 p.m. They visited there until midnight, whereuponTabbatha returned the car to her mother at R.J.'s Bar and Grill. Franklin, Crystal, and someone named Mikey came along in Crystal's car. After leaving Tabbatha's mother's car at R.J.'s Barand Grill, they returned to Tabbatha's house, in Crystal's car,and visited there a while longer. At 1 a.m. on November 29,Franklin, Autumn, and Crystal took Mikey home. Tabbatha remainedat her house. At 1:30 a.m., after stopping at Steak and Shake,Franklin, Autumn, and Crystal returned to Tabbatha's house, whereeveryone went to bed.

Autumn Murrell, 16 years old, corroborated Tabbatha'stestimony, except she did not testify to accompanying Tabbatha toFranklin's mother's house.

Crystal Ellis, 17 years old, described Franklin Smallas 5 feet 6 or 7 inches tall, weighing "100 some pounds, kind ofchubby a little," and having "dark hair and dark eyes." Shethought he was 18 or 19 years old. She remembered what happenedon November 28, 1999, because, like Tabbatha, she was a diarist. Her testimony agreed with Tabbatha's and Autumn's, and she addedthat from the time they picked up Franklin at his mother's houseuntil they went to bed at 1:40 a.m., Franklin was continuously inher presence. All three witnesses--Tabbatha, Autumn, andCrystal--testified they were acquainted with defendant and didnot see him on November 28, 1999.

The defense next called Amanda Russell, 20 years old,who testified that she had been Gary Wharton's girlfriend for twoyears and had known defendant, Gary's brother, six or sevenyears. On November 28, 1999, Cory Zimmer and Donna Scott came toher house between 5:45 and 6 p.m. Although Gary lived withAmanda, he was not home, having stormed out after arguing withher. Only Amanda, Cory, and Donna were in the house. Afterlifting weights in Amanda's house for approximately 15 minutes,Cory said he had to go to Wal-Mart and left Donna with Amanda. When Cory returned, he and Donna left immediately because Amandahad to pick up defendant at his mother's house. (Defendant hadno car, and Amanda often gave him rides.) At 7:35 or 7:40 p.m.,Amanda picked defendant up, and the two went to Carlos O'Kelly'srestaurant. Approximately 45 minutes later, she and defendantreturned to her house, sat in the living room, and watchedtelevision. Amanda fell asleep at 9:30 or 10 p.m., and when sheawoke at 2 or 3 a.m., defendant was asleep on the floor of theliving room and Gary Wharton was asleep in the bedroom.

Patrick Campbell testified he was a Decatur policeofficer assigned to the detective bureau and his job was toinvestigate violent crimes. On December 7, 1999, James Foremantold him "he believed the subject who came to his bedroom was ablack male because he could see darkness around the [eyeholes] ofthe mask and possibly on the neck he could see dark skin." Jamesfurther told him there were two or possibly three intruders inthe apartment and they wore masks. On December 15, 1999, heinterviewed Tiffany McQueen and showed her two photographiclineups, including a photograph of defendant. Campbell describedCory Zimmer as a blonde-haired man 5 feet 10 inches to 6 feettall, and weighing 180 pounds.

Defendant rested. After a conference on the instructions, defendant renewed his motion for a directed verdict,arguing, this time, that there was no evidence that defendant wasnot a police officer acting in the line of duty. The trial courtdenied the motion for a directed verdict.

During his closing argument, defense counsel arguedthat because Donna Scott had given the police different versionsof the facts "depending on which way the wind was blowing," thejury should not believe her now. She had admitted falselyaccusing Gary Fisher. Therefore, defense counsel argued, she wasfully capable of falsely accusing defendant. If, according tothe testimony of three witnesses, Franklin Small was not presentat the robbery, the jury could not believe Donna Scott's testimony that defendant was present, either. In short, the gravamenof defense counsel's argument was that Donna Scott was unbelievable and defendant was not one of the robbers.

The trial court instructed the jury that home invasionhad the following four elements:

"First proposition, that the [d]efendant orone for whose conduct he is legally responsible was not a police officer acting in theline of duty, and[,] second proposition[,]that the [d]efendant or one for whose conducthe is legally responsible knowingly and without authority entered the dwelling place ofanother[,] and[,] third proposition, thatwhen the [d]efendant or one for whose conducthe is legally responsible[] entered thedwelling place[,] he knew or had reason toknow that one or more persons was presentand[,] fourth proposition, that the[d]efendant or one for whose conduct he islegally responsible intentionally caused theinjury to Darin Hill, a person within thedwelling place."

The trial court instructed the jury that armed robbery had thefollowing three elements:

"First proposition, that the [d]efendant orone for whose conduct he is legally responsible knowingly took property from the personor presence of Darin Hill and James Foreman[,] and, second proposition, that the[d]efendant or one for whose conduct he islegally responsible did so by the use offorce or by threatening the eminent [sic] useof force[,] and[,] third proposition, thatthe [d]efendant or one for whose conduct heis legally responsible, carried on or abouthis person a dangerous weapon or otherwise[was] armed with a dangerous weapon at thetime of the taking."

The trial court instructed the jury that residential burglary hadthe following three elements:

"First proposition, that the [d]efendant orone for whose conduct he is legally responsible knowingly entered the dwelling place ofanother[,] and[,] second proposition, thatthe [d]efendant or one for whose conduct heis legally responsible did so without authority[,] and[,] third proposition, that the[d]efendant or one for whose conduct he islegally responsible did so with the intent tocommit therein the offense of theft."

The trial court instructed the jury on accountability, as follows:

"A person is legally responsible for theconduct of another person when either beforeor during the commission of an offense andwith the intent to promote or facilitate thecommission of an offense[,] he knowinglysolicits, aids[,] abets, agrees to aid[,] orattempts to aid the other person in the planning or commission of an offense."

The trial court further instructed the jury:

"When a witness says he was involved in thecommission of a crime with the [d]efendant,the testimony of that witness is subject tosuspicion and should be considered by youwith caution. It should be carefully examined in light of the other evidence in thecase."

During deliberation, the jury gave the trial court awritten request for the date of Donna Scott's statement to thepolice, a copy of Donna Scott's testimony, and a copy of DonnaScott's police testimony. After discussing the jury's requestwith counsel, the trial court replied in writing as follows:

"We cannot provide you with that materialbecause we do not have the equipment to provide that information in a reasonable periodof time. You will have to decide the case onthe testimony you heard and saw and yourrecollection of the evidence."

On May 19, 2000, the second day of deliberation, thejury announced a verdict of not guilty on the count of homeinvasion and declared itself hung on the counts of armed robberyand residential burglary. The trial court entered judgment onthe verdict of not guilty and declared a mistrial on the othertwo counts.

On July 3, 2000, defendant filed a motion to barprosecution, arguing that because the jury had returned a verdictof not guilty on the charge of home invasion (count V), thedoctrines of collateral estoppel and double jeopardy barred theState from prosecuting him again on the remaining charges (countsVI and VII).

On August 9, 2000, the trial court heard arguments onthe motion. Defense counsel argued that, looking at the recordrealistically, the court should conclude that the jury disbelieved the following elements: (1) that defendant entered theapartment or (2) that defendant intentionally injured Darin Hillby striking him on the head with a gun. Like home invasion,residential robbery required an unauthorized entry, and, by theState's theory, the armed robbery occurred inside the apartment. Moreover, counts V and VI both required that defendant was armedwith a gun, and no solid evidence showed that he was armed,defense counsel argued.

The trial court remarked that in count V of the charge(home invasion), the State alleged defendant "struck Darin Hillin the head with a gun." "[I]f I was a juror," the trial courtsaid, "I [would have been] convinced he was hit in the head, butI don't think the evidence was real clear as to what he was hitwith. *** I [would not be] convinced beyond a reasonable doubthe was hit with a gun." The trial court noted that the instruction on home invasion did not require that defendant hit Darinwith a gun. The charge alleged he did so, however, and the courtthought the jury might have "got hung up on" that allegation inthe charge. Defense counsel argued it was "a great leap *** toassume that [the jury] ignored instructions and tacked on anadditional element of being hit in the head with a gun as opposedto something else."

The prosecutor argued that the count of home invasionhad elements that were not in the other counts, namely, that (1)defendant was not a police officer acting in the line of duty and(2) defendant knew or had reason to know that someone was in theapartment when he entered it. The jury might have found one orboth of those elements to be unproved, the prosecutor argued.

After hearing those arguments, the trial court deniedthe motion to bar prosecution. This appeal followed.

According to defendant, this appeal presents onlyquestions of law and the standard of review is, therefore, denovo. The State does not disagree. We review questions of lawde novo. People v. Bramlett, 329 Ill. App. 3d 286, 289, 767N.E.2d 961, 964 (2002).

The Illinois constitution says: "No person shall ***be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense." Ill. Const.1970, art. I,