People v. O’Daniell, 2024 IL App (5th) 230084 (August). Episode 1062 (Duration 11:46)

Be very suspicious when defense tries to separate the words from the conduct when the words were stated because an individual’s demeanor when making a statement is very important in determining the weight to be given that statement. 

Charges

Defendnat was charged with murder and aggravated battery to a child for causing injuries that lead to the death of his 3 month old child.

Gist

The defense managed to convice the trial judge to suppress the video recording of defendant’s interview. 

The state appealed. 

Facts

Mother took child to hosptial after she came home from work and noticed that her baby had “a bloody nose, a bruise on his nose, a bruise on his eye, and a bruise on the left side of his face.” 

Claudia asked defendant what happened to C.O., but defendant continuously replied that 

nothing had happened. 

Defendant actively tried to prevent mother from taking child to the hospital. She was able to pull child away and run to a neigbors where she called police.

Defendant Was Interviewed

Detective Dwyer of the Marion Police Department and Special Agent Rolape conducted an interview with defendant at the Marion Police Department at approximately 1:30 a.m. on the night of the incident. 

• Shortly after the officers finished their interview, two officers with the Illinois State Police conducted an interview of defendant.
• During the interviews, defendant stated that he took care of C.O. while Claudia worked.
• Defendant indicated that he was the only person with the baby while Claudia was at work.
• Defendant initially denied that anything had happened to the baby and indicated that he never observed any type of injuries to C.O., stating that Claudia came home and “freaked out.”
• Later, the video-recorded interview shows defendant becoming visibly upset and exclaimed,
• “I dropped the baby!”
• Defendant indicated that he was feeding the baby and tripped on a tear in the carpet in the living room and dropped C.O. onto the carpeted floor. Defendant told law enforcement that C.O. fell approximately three to four feet.
• Detective Dwyer indicated that Dr. Todd Engdahl with the Heartland Regional Medical Center and Dr. Jason Warner with Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital both noted that the event described by defendant would not have caused C.O.’s injuries.
• The force applied to C.O.’s body caused bleeding in his brain, optical nerve hemorrhage, and other injuries associated with a closed-head injury.
• The injuries eventually resulted in his death.
• Defendant’s statements were recorded at the Marion Police Department, and the video recording included the interviews by both the Marion Police Department and the Illinois State Police law enforcement officials.

Issue

The State argues that the circuit court’s decision to wholly exclude the evidence of defendant’s video-recorded statement, which contained inculpatory evidence, was an abuse of judicial discretion. 

Defendant’s Motion in Limine

Defendant’s motion in limine sought to exclude the video recording of defendant’s statements to police in the hours after defendant’s infant child was found with significant injuries after being in the sole care of defendant.

▶ Defendant argued in the circuit court that the State’s primary purpose of presenting the video during its case-in-chief would be to improperly admit otherwise inadmissible propensity and character evidence prior to defendant testifying at trial. 

▶ Defendant also argued at the hearing on his motion that the video is “simply a means for the State to introduce, bluntly, my client’s bad behavior, his frustration, his anger as a means to introduce those issues to the jury.”

▶ Defendant did acknowledge that the statements were admissible and that the State’s witnesses would not be barred from testifying to the contents of the interrogation. Thus, the only evidence that defendant sought to exclude was the actual recording, not testimony about the events depicted on the recording. 

▶ Defendant maintains that the primary reason the State sought to introduce the video recording of his police interrogation was to highlight defendant’s demeanor during the interview, which showed him upset, cursing, and at times aggressive.

Defendant argues that such evidence constitutes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts which are generally inadmissible if the purpose of such evidence is merely to show that the person has a bad character and to suggest that the person must have therefore behaved badly relative to the charged offense. See Ill. R. Evid. 404(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011) (“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith” on a particular occasion.). Such evidence includes not just acts which constitute criminal offenses but any bad or wrongful acts. People v. Davis, 248 Ill. App. 3d 886, 891 (1993).

Trial Judge Granted The Motion

In the case before us, the circuit court determined that the video-recorded interrogation of defendant unfairly prejudiced him.

1. The circuit court’s order noted that the video “reveal[s] the Defendant punching his hand, cursing at the officers while becoming visibly hostile.” Defendant states, “just take me to jail.”
2. The circuit court noted that defendant says, “this is why I told her not to call the cops,” and the circuit court indicates that defendant made “other substantially prejudicial comments.”
3. The circuit court found that the “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
4. “The behavior, comments and overall hostile/aggressive demeanor of Defendant could cast a negative light on Defendant which ultimately may affect the jury’s consideration.”

Therefore, the circuit court ruled that the State “shall not be allowed to present the video interview” during its “case in chief” and granted defendant’s motion in limine. 

The State’s Argument

In the circuit court, the State argued that, pursuant to Illinois Rule of Evidence 403 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011), the video-recorded interview’s probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The 404(b) Argument

Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith except as provided by sections 115–7.3, 115–7.4, and 115–20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (725 ILCS 5/115–7.3, 725 ILCS 5/115–7.4, and 725 ILCS 5/115–20). Such evidence may also be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

The law distrusts the inference that, because a person committed other crimes or bad conduct, he is more likely to have committed the crime charged. People v. Brown, 319 Ill. App. 3d 89, 99 (2001). 

Analysis of Other Crimes and Improper Character Evidence

First, we note that the video-recorded interview went directly to an element of the crime charged and, thus, it defies logic that it would be introduced merely to establish defendant’s general propensity to commit the crime charged. 

The evidence is directly relevant to whether or not defendant committed the crime charged.

Even if we agreed that defendant’s demeanor during his custodial interview constituted other bad acts as contemplated by Rule 404, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

Defendant’s statement to the officers was that he did not see anything wrong with C.O. while he cared for him, and that nothing out of the ordinary occurred on that evening. Eventually, defendant stated that the injuries were inflicted by accident, when the defendant tripped and dropped C.O. Defendant is charged with a specific intent crime and has, at least prior to trial, indicated his likely defense of accident.

Thus, intent is expected to be at issue in this particular trial. 

While defense counsel further argued that propensity was the sole purpose for introducing the evidence at trial, counsel did not argue that the video-recorded interview was not relevant to show modus operandi, motive, intent, or any other proper fact, consistent with Rule 404.

Rule of Evidence 403

We will now turn to the circuit court’s ruling that defendant’s video-recorded interview was more prejudicial than probative. 

What Is Relevant Evidence?

We begin with the basic principles governing the admissibility of a defendant’s custodial statements to police officers. 

Generally, evidence is admissible if it is relevant. Ill. R. Evid. 401 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011). 

Relevant evidence is defined as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 

To establish the relevance of a piece of evidence the proponent must

(1) identify the fact that it is seeking to prove with the evidence,
(2) explain how that fact is of consequence, and
(3) show how the evidence tends to make the existence of this fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

People v. Maldonado, 402 Ill. App. 3d 411, 418 (2010). 

Not Hearsay

Pursuant to Illinois Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011), a defendant’s out-ofcourt statements generally are not covered by the rules against hearsay and thus are admissible at his trial. People v. Harper, 2013 IL App (4th) 130146, ¶ 13.

If a defendant receives his Miranda warnings and chooses to speak with police officers, his statements are admissible as evidence against him so long as the statements given are voluntary. People v. Harris, 2012 IL App (1st) 100678, ¶ 52.

Here, the circuit court found that defendant’s statements were voluntary. 

The 403 Argument

Here, the recording is the strongest evidence of defendant’s statements during his interview, as well as defendant’s demeanor in the hours after the commission of the alleged offense. 

Why? Because…

• Defendant recounts the events that occurred earlier that evening, indicating that nothing occurred that would injure C.O. 
• Then, defendant changed his version of events, indicating that he dropped the baby, exposing inconsistencies between defendant’s initial statement and his later statement. 
• The video evidence is undoubtedly relevant, as it contains defendant’s accounting of the events within hours of the alleged incident

Here, defendant’s child was injured—and ultimately perished—while in defendant’s exclusive care. 

The 403 Analysis

Because we find the evidence relevant, we next consider whether its probative value is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

“Under Rule 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues or the potential for misleading the jury.” People v. Epstein, 2022 IL 127824, ¶ 10.

Key Finding

While defendant’s demeanor during his custodial interview has the potential to cast him in a negative light, this was a risk defendant chose when he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and agreed to talk to the police. A fact finder should not be prevented from considering defendant’s demeanor merely because that risk did not work out in his favor.

We cannot reasonably find that the probative value of defendant’s video-recorded interview, showing him provide a statement that nothing unusual occurred that would have injured his infant son, and then, exclaiming that he dropped the baby, is substantially outweighed by any potential for unfair prejudice. 

Nor can we reasonably find that the video-recorded interview as a whole unfairly prejudices defendant. 

More 403 Analysis 

Defendant was aware that he was being audio and video recorded, and he waived his Miranda rights accordingly. Defendant cannot now complain that there were times that he shouted, yelled, and acted out during his statement.

Although defendant frequently had emotional outbursts during his interrogation, he ultimately stated that he “dropped the baby.” These outbursts are not “likely to arouse feelings of sympathy, horror, or disgust beyond those that might arise from the nature of the criminal charges against the defendant.” Id.

However, both of defendant’s explanations for the events of the evening contained in his video- recorded interview were inconsistent with law enforcement’s findings of blood on a wall of the home, further bolstering the significant probative value of the evidence.

Defendant’s statements also served to corroborate the testimony of other 23 witnesses regarding the events that occurred before and after he was alone with C.O. Despite the deferential standard of review, here, we find the circuit court’s decision to be an abuse of discretion. 

Holding

Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s ruling on defendant’s motion in limine that the video-recorded interview, as a whole, should be excluded from the State’s case-in-chief on the basis that its probative value was substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice as an abuse of discretion. 

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the circuit court of Williamson County granting defendant’s motion in limine that suppressed the video recording of defendant’s interview with law enforcement, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 

Reversed and remanded.