People v. Boston ( 2021 )

2021 IL App (1st) 181822-UNo. 1-18-1822
Order filed June 30, 2021
Fourth Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County.
)
v. ) Nos. 13 CR 15517-19
)
NORRIS BOSTON, ) Honorable
) Alfredo Maldonado,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Gordon and Justice Martin concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant’s convictions are affirmed where the trial court properly denied
defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence.
¶2 Three separate indictments in case numbers 13 CR 15517, 13 CR 15518, and 13 CR
15519 1, charged defendant Norris Boston with committing a total of 71 sex-related offenses
1
Pursuant to the State’s motion for joinder, all three cases were joined without objection.
No. 1-18-1822
against three minor children, sisters D.M.I, Y.M, and D.M.II, 2 between August 1, 2012, and July
16, 2013. Prior to defendant’s bench trial, the State nol-prossed multiple counts. The court
convicted defendant on all remaining counts and ultimately sentenced him to natural life
imprisonment on nine separate Class X charges of predatory criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS
5/11-1.40(A)(1) (West 2012)), four years’ imprisonment on one Class 1 charge of criminal sexual
assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(2) (West 2012)), and three years’ imprisonment on one Class 2
charge of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(B) (West 2012)).
¶3 For the following reasons, we affirm. 3
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 A. Motion to Suppress
¶6 On March 2, 2017, defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence in this
matter. The motion alleged that defendant was arrested in the absence of probable cause and sought
to suppress inculpatory statements made by him and the contents of his cellular phone.
¶7 A hearing was held on defendant’s motion on May 16, 2017. Sergeant Sarah Vanthof
testified that while on duty on July 16, 2013, at 4:30 p.m., an individual named Melvin Cruz (Cruz)
arrived at the 25th police district to report a criminal sexual assault. Cruz showed Sergeant Vanthof
photographs of young girls that depicted genitalia. Cruz provided the names of the children. Cruz
told Sergeant Vanthof that his tenant, defendant, sent Cruz the photographs and informed Cruz
that he had sex with one of the girls. Cruz provided defendant’s address of 2158 North Kilpatrick
2
Two of the named victims and another sister bear the same first and last initials and are referred
to in descending age as “D.M.I”, “D.M.II”, and “D.M.III”.
3
In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this
appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order.
-2-
No. 1-18-1822
Avenue and informed Sergeant Vanthof that defendant resided with the victims at this address for
over three weeks.
¶8 Sergeant Vanthof then conducted a name check and learned that defendant violated the Sex
Offender Act (730 ILCS 150/3(a) (West 2012); 730 ILCS 150/10(a) (West 2012)) by not
registering 2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue as his current address. Sergeant Vanthof conveyed this
information to Officer Casey Nolan and instructed him to go to 2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue to
arrest defendant. Sergeant Vanthof did not delay to obtain an arrest warrant, for she believed that
the victims could be at home with the alleged offender.
¶9 Detective Casey Nolan testified that at 6:30 p.m. on July 16, 2013, while he was employed
as a police officer with the Chicago Police Department 4, Sergeant Vanthof informed him that
defendant was a named suspect in a predatory criminal sexual assault of at least one minor female.
Detective Nolan knew that defendant’s cellular phone contained possible child pornography and
that defendant, a registered sex offender, failed to register his current alleged address of 2158
North Kilpatrick Avenue.
¶ 10 While assisting officers went to the front door of 2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue, Detective
Nolan and his partner, Officer Rondon Solis, went to the rear door of the residence. After the
assisting officers knocked on the front door, defendant was arrested, Mirandized, and transported
to the 25th police district.
¶ 11 After the evidence, the court found:
“THE COURT: All right. The Court’s had an opportunity to observe the demeanor
and assess the credibility of the two witnesses who testified and, of course, take
4
Detective Nolan was later promoted to detective.
-3-
No. 1-18-1822
into consideration the arguments of counsel. So the situation that I’ve heard is that
on July 16th of 2013, police received information from Mr. Cruz about some
images that were sent to him from Mr. Boston, some allegedly pornographic images
of children, children’s genitalia, and that's what led Mr. Cruz to the police, to notify
the police of this suspected pornography. And the police then did a name check,
and there was -- they found out that the defendant was subject to the Sex Offender
Registry and that the address he was registered at was different from the address
that Mr. Cruz said that Mr. Boston, the defendant, was living.
Mr. Cruz, from what I’ve heard, was the landlord, and Mr. Boston was the
tenant. I heard that defendant, at least from Mr. Cruz, the information that Mr. Cruz
gave to the police, defendant was living at this address, new address for over three
weeks, and that’s information that Sergeant Vanthof got. Based on the information
that she got, Detective Nolan was dispatched, sent out to that residence at about
6:30 in the evening, still, you know, late afternoon, evening. And the defendant was
taken into custody outside the residence, I guess in the porch area. There was no
warrant. He was arrested outside.
A couple of things here. He wasn’t -- since he wasn’t arrested inside his
home, the lack of a warrant is not really an issue here. I don’t know if an
investigative alert really -- what an investigative alert is. It really isn’t anything of
any constitutional validity, but the case law is that an arrest may be had outside
someone’s residence with probable cause here. And I’ve heard here that this citizen,
-4-
No. 1-18-1822
individual, Mr. Cruz, made a report of suspected child pornography and suspected
child sexual abuse.
And, also, the secondary issue is that the police had probable cause that Mr.
Boston was living in violation of his obligations under the Sex Offender
Registration Act. I think under the information the police had, there was probable
cause both of a suspected child sexual abuse, certainly some sort of dissemination
of child pornography, and also that Mr. Boston was living in violation of his sex
offender registration obligations. Based on that, I cannot say that the Fourth
Amendment -- Mr. Boston’s Fourth Amendment Rights were violated in the act --
the way that police took him into custody. Moreover, when they came in, they went
to the -- well, they came to the residence. He was Mirandized. He wasn’t asked
where he was living and then he gave that information. They seized him, took him
into -- they Mirandized him. And the statements that he made that he was living
there were given after he was Mirandized. It certainly wasn’t something that the
police tried to sandbag him here, at least not from what I’ve heard here.
Now, as far as his cell phone that is recovered off the defendant, I’ve heard
just -- and I didn’t hear anything factually during the motion here, during the
hearing on the motion. I just heard through argument -- because when I asked the
State that once the cell phone was seized by the police, later on the police got a
search warrant to open up the cell phone or to retrieve information off that cell
phone.
-5-
No. 1-18-1822
So based on what I’ve heard here, I cannot say that the Fourth Amendment
was violated. Now, obviously, if there’s some other motion regarding the recovery
of those images, certainly the defense can certainly file that; but based on what I’ve
heard here, the defendant’s motion is respectfully denied.”
¶ 12 B. The Trial
¶ 13 Defendant’s bench trial commenced on October 11, 2017. Sergeant Sarah Vanthof testified
that on July 16, 2013, Melvin Cruz arrived at the 25th police district and showed her three
screenshots of photographs on his cellular phone. The photographs depicted two young females,
who appeared to be between 9 and 14 years of age and showed exposed genitalia. Cruz told
Sergeant Vanthof that defendant, his tenant, sent the photographs to him. 5 The three photographs,
which showed the girls posing with their genitalia and buttocks exposed, were admitted in
evidence.
¶ 14 Cruz told Sergeant Vanthof, that defendant’s date of birth, was January 5, 1989, and that
defendant resided at 2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue. Sergeant Vanthof used this information to
conduct a name check that revealed defendant was a registered sex offender on the Illinois State
Police website and that defendant’s registered address was not listed as 2158 North Kilpatrick
Avenue. After making these observations, Sergeant Vanthof instructed Officer Casey Nolan to
determine whether defendant was at the 2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue address.
¶ 15 Detective Nolan testified that on July 16, 2013, Sergeant Vanthof directed him to go to
2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue to locate defendant for failing to register his correct address and
possibly having child pornography on his cellular phone. At approximately 4 p.m., Detective
5
Cruz was also indicted but died before his trial in this matter.
-6-
No. 1-18-1822
Nolan, his partner, Roldon Solis, and other assisting officers went to the apartment building at
2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue. Detective Nolan went to the rear of the apartment and was in radio
contact with the assisting officers monitoring the front of the residence. When defendant exited
the rear door, Detective Nolan arrested him.
¶ 16 Detective Nolan read defendant his Miranda rights, and after defendant said that he
understood those rights, he told Detective Nolan that he resided at the apartment but had not
registered at that address. Defendant removed a cellular phone from his pocket and attempted to
give it to someone in the residence, but Detective Nolan recovered it and later gave it to Detective
Ian Barclay.
¶ 17 At the police station, defendant was interviewed by detectives Barclay and Manuel
De La Torre. At approximately 10:58 p.m., after being Mirandized and again indicating that he
understood his rights, defendant told the detectives that he did not register as a sex offender
because he could not afford the $20 registration fee. When defendant was asked about the
pornographic images on Cruz’s phone, defendant requested a lawyer, and questioning ceased.
At approximately 11:20 p.m., defendant waved to Detective De La Torre from a window in the
room where defendant was being held, Detective De La Torre opened the door, and defendant
requested to speak to Detective Barclay.
¶ 18 Defendant then told Detective Barclay that he wanted to talk “because Cruz had set him
up.” Defendant was again Mirandized and, after again acknowledging his rights, told the detectives
that he had about seven photographs of himself having sex with his girlfriend, Y.M., and her little
sister. Defendant signed a written consent form allowing the detectives to view his phone.
-7-
No. 1-18-1822
Defendant entered the passcode for his phone and showed Detective Barclay photographs of the
girls, identifying them by name and age.
¶ 19 Defendant referred to Y.M. as his “girlfriend” and identified a photograph of D.M.I that
showed liquid on her pelvic area where “he nutted on her.” Defendant admitted putting his penis
and finger in Y.M.’s vagina, putting his penis in her mouth, and putting his mouth on her vagina
when Y.M. was 10 and 11 years old. Defendant knew Y.M.’s age, having given her a Justin Bieber
birthday card and $20 when she turned 11 years old. Defendant said that when he put his penis in
Y.M.’s vagina, she told him that it hurt, so he “jacked off” and “came on her stomach.” Both before
and after Y.M. was 11 years old defendant penetrated her vaginally. Defendant said that he put his
mouth on Y.M.’s vagina around seven times “[b]ecause she liked that.”
¶ 20 Defendant said that D.M.I was 13 years old, and he provided her date of birth. Defendant
admitted putting his penis and finger in D.M.I’s vagina and said that the last time he penetrated
her with his finger was the day of his arrest, July 16, 2013. When D.M.I told defendant that it hurt
when he put his penis in her vagina, defendant masturbated until he ejaculated.
¶ 21 Defendant told the detectives that he put his finger in D.M.II’s vagina when she was
8 years old.
¶ 22 Defendant also told the detectives that Cruz offered defendant money if he took
photographs of himself having sex with the minors. Cruz told defendant that he would sell the
photographs on the internet for $25,000.
¶ 23 Former ASA Colleen Rogers testified that she was assigned to the felony review unit of
the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office on July 17, 2013. Ms. Rogers Mirandized defendant
and ultimately reduced his oral statement to a typewritten document which defendant corrected
-8-
No. 1-18-1822
and signed. The statement was admitted at trial in its entirety. We now summarize the contents of
defendant’s statement.
¶ 24 Defendant admitted that he began residing with B.M. and her daughters at 4710 West
Dickens Avenue in August of 2012; and lived with them at 2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue from
July 1, 2013, until his arrest. Defendant never updated his registered address because he lacked the
money to obtain an updated state I.D.
¶ 25 Defendant became involved in a relationship with Y.M. when she was 10 years old. Y.M.
agreed to be his “girlfriend.” Defendant admitted that Y.M. performed oral sex on him and that
he performed oral sex on her. Defendant attempted to have vaginal sex with Y.M., but he stopped
when she told him that it hurt. Defendant also touched Y.M.’s vagina with his finger but stopped
when she told him that also hurt. Defendant bought Y.M. a pair of thong underwear from Target
and gave it to her to wear. He took a photograph of her wearing the thong.
¶ 26 Defendant admitted committing multiple sexual acts with 13-year-old D.M.I. Just before
D.M.I’s thirteenth birthday, D.M.I performed oral sex on defendant. Defendant also attempted to
put his penis in D.M.I’s “butt,” but stopped when D.M.I told him that it hurt. Defendant touched
D.M.I’s vagina with his hand and put his finger in her vagina.
¶ 27 Defendant told ASA Rogers that on July 16, 2013, defendant was alone with D.M.I and
D.M.III when D.M.I performed oral sex on him. Defendant took a photograph of this on his cellular
phone. Defendant also performed oral sex on D.M.I and took photographs of D.M.I on the bed
with her vagina and buttocks exposed. Defendant masturbated and ejaculated in D.M.I’s vaginal
area and took a photograph that showed defendant’s semen.
-9-
No. 1-18-1822
¶ 28 Defendant told ASA Rogers that when D.M.II was 9 years old, he rubbed her vagina inside
the lips but did not “go into the hole.” Defendant said that D.M.II smiled when he did this, and he
believed “it felt good to her.”
¶ 29 Defendant said that he had sexual contact with 8-year-old D.M.III. On one day in March
of 2013, defendant rubbed D.M.III’s vagina with his hand. Defendant rubbed D.M.III’s vagina
inside the lips but did not "go into the hole," and D.M.III “seemed to enjoy when he did this to her
because she was smiling.”
¶ 30 On July 15, 2013, defendant texted Cruz to find out whether Cruz received the $100
defendant owed him for rent. Cruz told defendant to find some girls who were 18 years old and
willing to make porn movies. Cruz then called back and asked defendant to find girls who were
14 or 15 years old, “the younger, the better.” When defendant said that he could only find one
girl, D.M.I, and that she was 13 years old, Cruz asked defendant to “send a picture of her p***.”
¶ 31 Cruz kept encouraging defendant to send more photographs and told defendant that he
would make “big money” from them and that no one would see them in Chicago because they
would be sold overseas. Cruz said that D.M.I agreed to pose for the photographs.
¶ 32 After his arrest, defendant requested an attorney but later knocked on his cell door and
asked to speak to Detective Barclay. Defendant told Detective Barclay that he wanted to waive his
right to an attorney and speak with him. Defendant also gave the police consent to search his phone
because he wanted them to be able to recover all of the photographs and text messages exchanged
between him and Cruz. Defendant felt that he should not take all of the blame because Cruz was
the person who “started it and he wanted Marvin to get in trouble, too.”
- 10 -
No. 1-18-1822
¶ 33 ASA Rogers testified that defendant identified the screenshots of photographs contained in
People’s Exhibits Nos. 2 and 5, taken from the cellphones of Cruz and defendant, respectively.
ASA Rogers testified to handwritten notations that defendant made next to the images contained
on these two exhibits.
¶ 34 The notations made by defendant on People’s Exhibit No. 2, reflect the identification of
“[D.M.I]” next to a screenshot of a photograph of a young girl posing nude on a bed with her legs
spread open; “[D.M.I]” next to a screenshot of a photograph of the same young girl with her
buttocks and right breast exposed; and “[Y.M.]” next to a screenshot of a photograph of a second
young girl displayed wearing a bra and thong with her buttocks exposed.
¶ 35 The notations on People’s Exhibit No. 5, the images from defendant’s phone reflect
defendant’s identification of “[D.M.I] & me” next to the screenshot of a photograph of a young
girl with a penis in her mouth, “[D.M.I] 13” next to the screenshot of a photograph depicting
defendant and the same young girl, “Nut my [D.M.I]” next to a photograph of the same young
girl’s exposed genitalia, and “[Y.M] 11 girlfriend” next to a screenshot of a photograph of a second
young girl.
¶ 36 The victims also testified at trial. D.M.I testified that she was 17 years old at the time of
trial and had three sisters, D.M.II, Y.M., and D.M.III. D.M.I lived with her sisters, their mother,
B.M., and her father, Mr. M. When D.M.I was 12 years old, defendant, whom the family referred
to as “Junior,” lived with them. The family’s landlord, Melvin Cruz, also lived in the same
building.
¶ 37 D.M.I recounted how defendant touched her private parts with his fingers on more than
one occasion and that it “hurt.” D.M.I further testified that on more than one occasion defendant
- 11 -
No. 1-18-1822
touched the inside of her vagina with his mouth and, while armed with a knife he held by his side,
repeatedly threatened to kill D.M.I and her entire family. Defendant also put his “peanuts,” which
she described as what he used to “pee” in D.M.I’s mouth and private part. The first time that
defendant put his penis in D.M.I’s private part, she was 12 years old. The last time that defendant
put his penis in her private part, she was 13 years old. Defendant also put his penis inside her butt
and did not stop when she told him that it hurt. The day that defendant was arrested, he touched
her private part with his mouth and took photographs of her on his cellular phone.
¶ 38 D.M.I identified photographs depicting her and Y.M., including photographs that revealed
D.M.I’s “private parts” and “butt,” defendant putting his penis inside D.M.I’s mouth, and
defendant’s “sperm” appearing on B.M.’s lower stomach area. D.M.I identified the photograph
that displayed Y.M. wearing “thongs and a bra” that defendant made her don. These photographs
were transferred to a DVD and admitted in evidence at trial.
¶ 39 D.M.I described another incident when she saw defendant photograph Y.M. in the bra and
thong he gave her. Defendant told Y.M. that he was going to marry Y.M. when she turned 18 years
old. D.M.I saw defendant post a photograph of him and Y.M. on Facebook. D.M.I saw defendant
touch Y.M.’s private part and saw “sperm” come out of it. D.M.I never told anyone about these
events until she was in eighth grade when she told a counselor what had happened. The day that
defendant was arrested, D.M.I told people what defendant did to her.
¶ 40 Y.M. testified that she was 15 years old at the time of trial. When Y.M. was 10 years old,
she saw defendant put his private part in D.M.I’s private part. Y.M. described “private parts” as
what people used to “pee.” Defendant put his private part in Y.M.’s mouth, and when “white stuff”
came out, it went in Y.M.’s mouth. Defendant told Y.M. that if she told anyone, he would kill her
- 12 -
No. 1-18-1822
and her whole family. Defendant had a knife in his hand when he said this, and Y.M. believed him.
Defendant also removed Y.M’s clothes and put his private part inside her private part. Y.M.
testified that this happened ten times and that it hurt. The last time that it happened, Y.M. was
11 years old. When Y.M. was 10 years old, defendant also put his finger inside her private part
more than once, and it felt “nasty and hurted.” Defendant told everyone that Y.M. was his wife.
¶ 41 Y.M. also identified the photographs that depicted her and D.M.I. Y.M. was 10 years old
when defendant gave her a thong and a bra, instructed her to put them on, and took photographs
of her wearing them. Defendant made D.M.I take off her clothes and strip on a flagpole in B.M.’s
room. Y.M. also saw defendant touch D.M.II’s private part when their father was incarcerated.
Y.M. told defendant to let D.M.II go, or she would call the police. Defendant then grabbed a knife
and tried to stab Y.M. Y.M. never told anyone about defendant’s actions until after he was arrested.
¶ 42 D.M.II testified that she was 13 years old at the time of trial. When she was 8 years old,
defendant touched the inside of her private part with his whole hand, and it hurt. She described her
private part as what she used to “pee.” This happened more than once. Defendant told D.M.II that
if she told her mom and dad, he would kill her whole family. Defendant had a knife in his hand
when he said this to her, and she believed him.
¶ 43 B.M. testified that she was 39 years of age at the time of trial and that in 2012 she and her
daughters resided at 2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue. Melvin Cruz was their landlord. B.M. was
friends with defendant’s mother, and she allowed defendant to live with her family from August
of 2012 until the day of his arrest because she needed someone to help her watch her children
while her husband was incarcerated.
- 13 -
No. 1-18-1822
¶ 44 On July 16, 2013, B.M.’s husband, Mr. M., was released from custody and returned to
reside with his family. That day, Cruz called and spoke with Mr. M. The police came to the
building and arrested defendant. Cruz showed B.M. and Mr. M. photographs of D.M.I and Y.M.
on his cellular phone. The photographs were date-stamped July 7, 2013. B.M. described the child
pornographic nature of what was depicted in the photographs.
¶ 45 Outside the presence of the police, B.M. and Mr. M. talked to their girls individually.
All three girls made outcries that coincided with their courtroom testimony. All three girls said
they did not tell B.M. what defendant had done because defendant threatened to kill their whole
family and was armed with a knife when he issued the threats.
¶ 46 The children were subsequently examined by Dr. Emily Sifferman and interviewed at the
Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC). The forensic interviews of D.M.II and Y.M. were admitted
in evidence.
¶ 47 Dr. Emily Sifferman testified about the physical examinations that she performed on the
children and her interviews with each of them. Swabs were taken from D.M.I to determine the
presence of semen.
¶ 48 D.M.I told Dr. Sifferman that defendant had sex with her and that “he made him stick his
potty part in me.” Dr. Sifferman testified that D.M.I clarified that she was referring to her genital
area as the part of her body that defendant put his “potty part” inside, and that defendant’s actions
hurt her. D.M.I told Dr. Sifferman that defendant also put his potty part in her mouth and that white
“sperm” came out and landed on her stomach. D.M.I reported that the last time this conduct
occurred was the previous day, July 16, 2013.
- 14 -
No. 1-18-1822
¶ 49 Dr. Sifferman’s examination revealed that D.M.I’s vaginal area was missing hymenal
tissue and revealed eczema and an adhesion, which Dr. Sifferman described as tissue stuck
together. An adhesion forms when an area of the body is inflamed. Dr. Sifferman opined that the
cleft or notch in D.M.I’s hymen derived from an old injury and was specific for previous
penetrating trauma. Based on the foregoing, Dr. Sifferman concluded that D.M.I was sexually
abused.
¶ 50 Y.M. told Dr. Sifferman that defendant said that “she was his wife,” that defendant touched
her sister, gave her thong underwear, threatened to kill her if she told anybody, and said that he
would make her have sex with his friend for $100. Y.M. said that defendant tried to have sex with
her but that it hurt. Y.M. also reported that defendant tried to kiss D.M.III on the mouth and
threatened to kill Y.M. if she told anyone.
¶ 51 D.M.II told Dr. Sifferman that defendant touched her butt and touched her genital area with
his hand.
¶ 52 Dr. Sifferman opined that although the physical examinations performed on Y.M. and D.M.
were normal, these findings were consistent with the girls’ reported histories. Dr. Sifferman
testified that the results of a physical examination might appear normal because abusive behavior
may not leave an injury, or an injury may have healed by the examination time.
¶ 53 Additionally, the parties stipulated that forensic scientist Karen Abbinanti conducted
Y chromosome PCR/STR DNA analysis on extracted DNA generated from a buccal standard
collected from defendant and compared it with a Y chromosome PCR/STR DNA analysis
generated from the oral swabs containing the presence of semen collected from D.M.I.
- 15 -
No. 1-18-1822
Ms. Abbinanti concluded that a human Y-STR DNA haplotype identified in the mixed fraction of
the extracted DNA from the oral swabs of D.M.I matched defendant’s Y-STR DNA haplotype.
¶ 54 Also admitted in evidence were extensive text messages between defendant and Cruz
recovered from Cruz’s cellular phone. The text messages essentially established that Cruz and
defendant were involved in an ongoing scheme wherein defendant would take pornographic
photographs of Y.M. and B.M. and provide them to Cruz for sale on the internet. The text messages
were replete with details and established that defendant had been sexually abusing the girls for
almost a year and included defendant’s statement that “I tried to f*** my wife, but she said it hurt.”
¶ 55 Additionally, a certified statement of conviction from March 3, 2008, for aggravated
criminal sexual abuse in case number 2007 CF 151 was admitted in evidence. The parties stipulated
that defendant entered a plea of guilty to this offense, which involved defendant’s act of putting
his penis in the vagina of an 11-year-old victim. Additionally, defendant’s identity as the
perpetrator, in that case, was supported by DNA evidence.
¶ 56 After the State rested, defendant testified that in July of 2013, he lived at 2158 North
Kilpatrick Avenue. Defendant testified that he only resided at this address for fourteen or fifteen
days before being arrested. Defendant lived with B.M., Mr. M., and their children, D.M.I, Y.M.,
D.M.II, and D.M.III. Defendant denied ever threatening any of the children or having sexual
contact with any of them.
¶ 57 After being arrested and taken to a small room, defendant asked for an attorney. Defendant
alleged that the police initiated a conversation with him after his request. Defendant was presented
with a typewritten statement by an ASA that he signed but never read. Defendant was intoxicated
at the police station, having smoked two and a half “blunts” of marijuana and snorted three lines
- 16 -
No. 1-18-1822
of powder cocaine. Defendant knew at the time of his arrest that he was going to the “county” for
failing to register as a sex offender.
¶ 58 On cross-examination, defendant admitted that upon being released from the Illinois
Department of Corrections on June 21, 2012, he was supposed to reside at 2502 West Division
Street. Defendant admitted that he resided with B.M.’s family for 11 months, both at 2158 North
Kilpatrick Avenue and at another address before that time. Defendant denied taking naked photos
of D.M.I and denied that his penis was depicted in the photograph that showed a penis in D.M.I’s
mouth. Defendant admitted that his cellular phone contained the photographs identified at trial but
claimed to leave his phone at B.M.’s home every now and then when he went to the store and
alleged that Cruz had access to his phone. Defendant did not recall sending the text messages to
Cruz.
¶ 59 In finding defendant guilty of all counts, the court indicated that there was an
“overwhelming mountain of evidence against Mr. Boston,” that defendant’s testimony
“was entirely, absolutely unbelieve, incredible,” and that the State proved defendant’s guilt’s
“more” than beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 60 Defendant filed a motion for new trial and argued that the State failed to prove defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant did not allege that the trial court erred in denying his
motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The trial court denied defendant’s motion.
¶ 61 The court subsequently sentenced defendant to natural life imprisonment on nine separate
Class X charges of predatory criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(A)(1) (West 2012)),
four years’ imprisonment on one Class 1 charge of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-
- 17 -
No. 1-18-1822
1.20(a)(2) (West 2012)), and three years’ imprisonment on one Class 2 charge of aggravated
criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(B) (West 2012)).
¶ 62 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
¶ 63 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 64 On appeal, defendant’s sole contention of error is that the trial court erroneously denied his
motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. While defendant admits that he did not preserve this
claim, we address it because the State has not argued forfeiture. People v. Smith, 2018 IL App (1st)
151402, ¶ 6.
¶ 65 It is well settled that a person may be arrested without a warrant when a police officer has
reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime. 725 ILCS 5/107–2(1)(c) (West
1992). The statutory standard is the same as the constitutional requirement of probable cause.
People v. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d 226, 243 (1984). The applicable test is whether a reasonable person,
having the knowledge possessed by the officer at the time of the arrest, would believe that the
defendant committed the offense. Id. at 237; People v. Holloway, 131 Ill. App. 3d 290, 305 (1985).
Probable cause is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt but a probability of criminal activity;
indeed, it is unnecessary for the State to show that it was more likely true than false that defendant
was involved in criminal activity. People v. Hopkins, 235 Ill. 2d 453, 472 (2009). “Thus, the
existence of possible innocent explanations for the individual circumstances or even for the totality
of the circumstances does not necessarily negate probable cause.” People v. Geier, 407 Ill. App.
3d 553, 557 (2011). In evaluating whether an officer has probable cause to arrest a defendant, the
focus is on probabilities and should not be unduly technical in deciding whether probable cause
existed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235-36 (1983). Rather, the focus is on the practical,
- 18 -
No. 1-18-1822
common-sense considerations that govern the actions of reasonable and prudent people. Hopkins,
235 Ill. 2d at 472.
¶ 66 In general, the reliability of an ordinary citizen, in contrast to an informant, need not be
established; that is, absent indications to the contrary, information provided by an ordinary citizen
is presumed to be reliable. People v. Jones, 374 Ill. App. 3d 566, 574 (2007). Probable cause may
also be based on an informant’s tip if it is shown to be reliable by demonstrating the informant’s
past reliability or by independently verifying a substantial part of the tip. People v. Serio, 357 Ill.
App. 3d 806, 814 (2005).
¶ 67 In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash, we give due weight to the trial
court’s inferences and uphold its findings of historical fact unless they are against the manifest
weight of the evidence. People v. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781, ¶ 18. We review de novo the ultimate
question of whether the evidence should be suppressed. Id. ¶ 18. We are not limited in our review
to the evidence from the motion hearing but may also consider the trial evidence. People v.
Richardson, 234 Ill. 2d 233, 252 (2009).
¶ 68 Here, defendant relies on several inapposite cases involving anonymous tipsters. People v.
Sparks, 315 Ill. App. 3d 786 (2000); People v. Yarber, 279 Ill. App. 3d 519 (1996); People v.
Maxey, 2011 IL App (1st) 10011; People v. Brown, 343 Ill. App. 3d 617 (2003). This case does
not concern an anonymous tipster but a self-identified individual who walked into a police station
and voluntarily produced information concerning a crime.
¶ 69 Nor does this case resemble People v. Jackson, 348 Ill. App. 3d 719 (2004), where the
court determined that the witness supplied insufficient evidence to provide the officer with
reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop of defendant and for his ultimate arrest. Id. at
- 19 -
No. 1-18-1822
729-30. Here, the police had probable cause to believe that defendant was violating the terms of
the Sex Offender Act (730 ILCS 150/3(a)(1); 730 ILCS 150/10(a) (West 2012)) by failing to
provide his current address. It is uncontroverted that defendant knowingly failed to register his
2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue address, where he testified to this fact at trial.
¶ 70 While defendant avers that additional corroboration is required when a civilian witness is
eventually charged as a codefendant, we do not believe that this fact, standing alone, necessarily
triggers a requirement of additional corroboration. Our conclusion finds support in the fact that an
individual’s arrest that is unsupported by probable cause may subsequently be validated by
intervening probable cause that arises from incriminatory statements made by a codefendant that
are reliable and legally obtained. People v. Wilberton, 348 Ill. App. 3d 82, 89-90 (2004); People
v. Klimawicze, 352 Ill. App. 3d 13, 20 (2004). Here, while it is true that Cruz was subsequently
charged as a codefendant, the record does not contain any suggestion that Cruz’s encounter with
the police was inherently unreliable or unlawfully obtained where Cruz went to the police station
of his own volition to apprise the authorities of defendant’s criminal activities.
¶ 71 Nevertheless, even if the general presumption of reliability for an ordinary citizen did not
apply, we would still conclude that Cruz’s information was sufficiently detailed and readily
verifiable to provide probable cause for defendant’s arrest. Cruz did not merely allege that
defendant sexually assaulted a child but substantiated his claim by providing defendant’s name,
date of birth, and address, by displaying child pornographic images of the identified children on
his cellular phone, and by identifying himself as the landlord of the building where the children
and defendant resided. To be clear, based on our review of the record, the images contained in
People’s Exhibit # 2 were unquestionably properly regarded by Sergeant Vanthof as indicative of
child pornography and required an immediate response by the authorities.
- 20 -
No. 1-18-1822
¶ 72 Even if further corroboration was required, however, Sergeant Vanthof acquired it when
she used defendant’s date of birth and address, as reported by Cruz, to identify defendant as a
currently registered sex offender who failed to provide his correct registered address. Taken in
conjunction with the information provided by Cruz, defendant’s status as a sex offender provided
probable cause to believe both that defendant violated the terms of the Sex Offender Act
(730 ILCS 150/3 (a)(1); 730 ILCS 150/10(a) (West 2012)) by failing to provide his place of
residence, possessed child pornography on his cellular phone, and had reoffended by committing
another sexual offense against a child.
¶ 73 Additionally, while not required, probable cause was further heightened when, in response
to the police arriving at 2158 North Kilpatrick Avenue and knocking on the front door, defendant
attempted to quickly depart from the residence through the rear door. The law requires no more.
The evidence established probable cause to arrest defendant.
¶ 74 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 75 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 76 Affirmed.
- 21 -