FIFTH DIVISION MAY 21, 2021

No. 1-19-0374

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). _____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT _____________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 18 CR 273901 ) TAQUELL CROSS, ) Honorable ) Vincent Gaughan, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. _____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Delort and Justice Hoffman concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The defendant’s conviction for residential burglary affirmed over his contention that the trial court committed plain error by admitting police officer’s testimony regarding fingerprint identification.

¶2 The defendant-appellant, Taquell Cross, appeals his conviction for residential burglary, for

which he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant argues that it was

plain error to admit testimony that his fingerprint was found at the scene of the burglary where the

fingerprint examiner did not specifically testify that he completed all necessary steps for verifying

the defendant’s fingerprint. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court 1-19-0374

of Cook County.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 Bimbi Munoz and Jesus De Los Santos lived with their son and Mr. De Los Santos’ brother

at 5326 West Newport Avenue in Chicago. On November 27, 2017, while they were out, their

home was burglarized. Upon their return, they discovered the door to their home ajar and the home

in disarray. When police arrived and they entered the home, the family noticed that several of

their possessions were missing, including an air conditioning unit, firearms, ammunition, a

MacBook computer, an iPhone, and an Xbox video game console. Ms. Munoz’s wallet was also

emptied of its contents. A television set, which had been moved from the bedroom to the kitchen,

was dusted for fingerprints, and Ms. Munoz and Mr. De Los Santos’ fingerprints were also taken

for comparison and elimination.

¶5 Chicago police detective Daniel Dennewitz examined a fingerprint recovered from the

home and discovered that it belonged to the defendant, Taquell Cross.

¶6 An investigative alert was issued and on January 26, 2018, the defendant was in custody.

Detectives questioned the defendant about the burglary at the Munoz/De Los Santos home. Upon

questioning, the defendant confessed, and was charged with residential burglary.

¶7 A jury trial commenced on December 6, 2018. At trial, Detective Dennewitz was admitted

as an expert on latent fingerprint examination after extensive voir dire. Detective Dennewitz began

his testimony by describing latent fingerprints and fingerprints generally. The detective explained

that latent fingerprints are those that are “hidden” and require development by crime scene

professionals. Detective Dennewitz further explained that fingerprints are permanent and unique

with friction ridge patterns consisting of raised ridges and deep valleys. Fingerprints have three

levels of detail. The first level is the ridge paths and “how they flow across the skin.” This level

-2- 1-19-0374

is similar among all humans. Level two is where the ridges stop and start or bifurcate, which is

more unique to individuals, and level three is the size of the ridge paths and the edges in the ridge

paths.

¶8 When examining a fingerprint, Detective Dennewitz testified that he uses the “ACE-V”

methodology. ACE-V is an acronym for analyze, compare, evaluate, and verify. At the analysis

stage, the examiner thoroughly analyzes the friction ridge impression and determines whether the

fingerprint has value. Assuming a determination of value is reached, the next step is to compare

the latent fingerprint to known fingerprints. The initial comparison is done against “elimination

prints,” which are taken from individuals, i.e. the victims, who have access to the crime scene. If

the victims can be eliminated as the source of the latent fingerprints, the examiner compares the

latent fingerprint to other known fingerprints. If a comparison results in an identification with

another known fingerprint, meaning that the latent and the known fingerprints share the same level

two or level three detail, then the examiner takes the third step of re-evaluating the two fingerprints.

Finally, the examiner has the results verified by another examiner.

¶9 With regard to the fingerprint recovered at the crime scene in this case, Detective

Dennewitz testified that he first analyzed the fingerprint and determined that it was suitable for

comparison. Next, he compared the latent fingerprint to the fingerprint of Mr. De Los Santos and

determined that the latent fingerprint did not belong to Mr. De Los Santos. Because there were no

suspects for him to compare the latent fingerprint to, he turned to the Automated Fingerprint

Identification System database (AFIS database). The AFIS database is a software tool where the

user can enter the latent fingerprint and the system will retrieve fingerprints stored in the system

from candidates that may match the latent fingerprint. Detective Dennewitz testified that the

defendant’s fingerprints were retrieved from the database as a possible match. Detective

-3- 1-19-0374

Dennewitz subsequently concluded that the defendant’s left middle fingerprint matched the latent

fingerprint recovered from the crime scene. He prepared a report indicating his conclusion.

Detective Dennewitz concluded by testifying that he followed “proper procedures and

methodology” in conducting his exam and comparison.

¶ 10 Detective Bilos Thomas, a Chicago police officer for 19 years, testified regarding the

defendant’s confession. Detective Thomas testified that he was assigned to investigate the

burglary in this case. As part of his investigation, he asked that the latent fingerprint recovered

from the television set at the crime scene be processed. On December 15, 2017, Detective Thomas

received Detective Dennewitz’s report of the fingerprint examination which identified the

defendant as a match for the latent fingerprint. Detective Thomas printed a photo of the defendant

from the Chicago Police Department central booking division. He later showed the photo to the

victims of the burglary. None of the victims recognized the defendant or had given him permission

to enter their residence.

¶ 11 On January 26, 2018, Detective Thomas interviewed the defendant with Detective Joe

Morgan. Detective Thomas took the defendant to an interview room that had recording equipment,

but the equipment was not turned on. Detective Thomas testified that they needed the defendant’s

consent to record the interview. After taking the defendant to the interview room, Detective

Thomas read the defendant his Miranda rights. The defendant stated that he understood his rights

and agreed to speak with the detectives.

¶ 12 The detective began by telling the defendant that his fingerprints were found in a house

that was burglarized. Initially, the defendant denied knowing about the burglary, but when

Detective Thomas told him the house had guns, the defendant admitted that he was familiar with

the house in question. The defendant then told the detectives that on November 27, 2017, his

-4- 1-19-0374

friend Enrique Rosa picked him up and the two drove around a neighborhood. Mr. Rosa would

stop the car and knock on doors to see if anyone was home. Eventually, Mr. Rosa and the

defendant reached the victim’s house, which they entered by removing the window air

conditioning unit. The defendant admitted to taking cell phones, a MacBook computer, a shotgun,

and a rifle from the house. The defendant said he sold the rifle to Christopher Medina and Mr.

Rosa kept the shotgun. The defendant also admitted to selling the remaining electronics. When

Detective Thomas asked the defendant why only his fingerprints were recovered from the scene,

the defendant stated that Mr. Rosa was wearing gloves.

¶ 13 On cross-examination, Detective Thomas stated that he did not ask for the defendant’s

permission to record the interview because he believed the defendant would not be comfortable

with that. He further testified that he had not been trained in taking handwritten statements and

did not take the defendant’s handwritten statement corroborating his verbal confession. Detective

Thomas testified that he did not attempt to contact Mr. Rosa, and that he abandoned any

investigation into Mr. Medina (the person to whom the defendant claimed to have sold the rifle)

after a phone call did not yield useful information.

¶ 14 Detective Morgan’s testimony corroborated that of Detective Thomas regarding the

interview of the defendant.

¶ 15 The defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was denied, and he rested his case without

putting on any evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty of residential burglary.

¶ 16 In January 2019, the defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and the defendant was

sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. His motion to reconsider sentence was denied, and the

defendant filed a notice of appeal the same day.

¶ 17 ANALYSIS

-5- 1-19-0374

¶ 18 We note that we have jurisdiction to review this matter, as the defendant timely appealed.

Ill. S. Ct. R. 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); Ill. S. Ct. R. 303 (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 19 The defendant challenges his conviction on the basis that the court erroneously admitted

Detective Dennewitz’s testimony where the detective did not testify that he performed the

verification required under the ACE-V methodology. At the outset, we note that the defendant

failed to object to Detective Dennewitz’s testimony at trial or in a posttrial motion, thereby

forfeiting this argument for review. See People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d. 478, 484 (2010) (failure

to object to an error at trial and allege error in posttrial motion forfeits appellate review of error).

However, the plain error doctrine allows us to consider an unpreserved issue in two circumstances:

(1) where a clear and obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error

alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of

the error; or (2) where a clear and obvious error occurred and the error itself is so serious that it

affected the integrity of the trial, regardless of the closeness of the evidence. People v. Harvey,

. The first step in plain error review is always to determine whether an error

occurred.

¶ 20 In support of its position that the trial court erred in admitting Detective Dennewitz’s

testimony, the defendant relies on People v. Cline,

. In that case, this

court reversed the defendant’s conviction for burglary based solely on fingerprint evidence where

Detective Dennewitz (the same detective involved in this case) failed to testify that an independent

examiner verified his identification of the defendant’s fingerprint. Id. ¶ 28. The court in Cline

ruled that Detective Dennwitz’s “flawed” examination of a single fingerprint was insufficient to

convict the defendant of residential burglary where no other evidence linked the defendant to the

crime scene. Id. ¶¶ 17, 28.

-6- 1-19-0374

¶ 21 In contrast to Cline, the defendant here does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. 1

Instead, he argues that Detective Dennewitz’s testimony was inadmissible because of the

detective’s failure to testify that an independent examiner verified his conclusion that the latent

fingerprint recovered from the scene belonged to the defendant. We review the admission of

evidence for an abuse of discretion. People v. Turner,

. An abuse

of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. People

v. Fredericks,

.

¶ 22 In this case, Detective Dennewitz described in detail the ACE-V methodology and further

testified that he followed that methodology in evaluating the latent fingerprint recovered in this

case. To be sure, Detective Dennewitz did not provide explicit testimony regarding his

performance of the verification step, in contrast to his detailed testimony on the analysis,

comparison, and evaluation steps. But issues regarding an expert’s application of generally

accepted techniques go to the weight of the evidence, rather than its admissibility. People v. Luna,

(quoting Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co.,

(2002) (abrogated on other grounds by In re Commitment of Simmons,

(2004))). In the case before us, given the detailed description of the ACE-V process by Detective

Dennewitz, the absence of explicit testimony regarding verification by another examiner was for

the jury to consider in determining the weight to accord Detective Dennewitz’s identification.

Therefore, it was not error for the court to admit the detective’s testimony and allow the jury to

determine its significance.

¶ 23 Because we conclude that no error occurred, we need not engage in plain error review.

1 Also, unlike Cline, the defendant’s conviction in this case did not rest solely on fingerprint evidence, but also on his detailed confession.

-7- 1-19-0374

¶ 24 CONCLUSION

¶ 25 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 26 Affirmed.

-8-