2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U No. 2-17-0284 Order filed March 23, 2020
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
SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court OF ILLINOIS, ) of Kane County. ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 14-CF-1506 ) RICHARD SCHMELZER, ) Honorable ) Linda Abrahamson, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Schostok and Brennan concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant’s first-degree murder conviction. Affirmed.
¶2 On July 18, 2014, Mildred Darrington, age 85, was found dead at home with a stab wound
in her neck. A jury ultimately found defendant, Richard Schmelzer (her grandson), guilty of first-
degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2012)). The court sentenced defendant to 45 years’
imprisonment and denied his post-trial motion. In this direct appeal, defendant challenges only
the sufficiency of the evidence that gave rise to his conviction. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
¶4 At trial, the State presented approximately 54 witnesses. In sum, the State’s theory was
that, for financial gain, defendant drove from his home in Texas to Illinois on July 17-18, 2014,
murdered Darrington, and immediately returned to Texas. Defendant did not testify or present
witnesses, but he argued, as he does on appeal, that the State’s case contained insufficient
circumstantial evidence to establish his guilt, that the case against him resulted from a rush to
judgment and a failure to investigate other suspects, and that the overall narrative “essentially
amounted to character assassination.” We summarize the pertinent evidence.
¶5 A. General Background, Cause of Death, and Crime Scene
¶6 In 2014, defendant lived in Frisco, Texas, with his wife, Jennifer, and four daughters. He
was employed as an athletic trainer for a local high school, although prior thereto he was employed
in a financial field. He was originally from Illinois, and his mother, Angela Schmelzer, adoptive
father, Fritz Schmelzer, sister, Kimberly Schmelzer, and Darrington continued to live in West
Dundee, St. Charles, and East Dundee, respectively. Defendant’s biological father, Richard Harris,
lived in Arizona. It is apparently undisputed that defendant was Darrington’s “favorite,” and they
enjoyed a special, close relationship. According to Kimberly, defendant would sometimes come
to Illinois in the middle of the night to stay with Darrington, and he and his family had visited
Darrington on occasions kept secret from Angela.
¶7 On Thursday, July 17, 2014, at 7:53 p.m., Darrington left a voicemail on a neighbor’s
answering machine, thanking the neighbor’s son for mowing her lawn. The son explained that
Darrington wanted her lawn mowed, because she had family coming in from out of town and that,
while there, he saw a roofer working on the house.
¶8 On July18, 2014, however, Darrington did not arrive at her weekly 9 a.m. hair appointment,
and her longtime hairdresser, Sylvia Poloway, went to her home in East Dundee to check on her.
-2- 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
The hairdresser entered the attached garage through a rear personal entry door, which was slightly
ajar, then entered the home through an unlocked door in the garage. She found Darrington in her
bed, with blankets covering most of her body and a pillow covering her face. Darrington was
motionless and not breathing. Poloway called the police around 9:30 a.m.
¶9 Police and paramedics arrived. When the paramedics removed the pillow covering
Darrington’s head and the blankets that covered her body, including her nose and mouth, they
noticed a trail of blood on the comforter and sheet. Darrington had a large amount of blood and
traumatic injuries around her neck, signs of rigor mortis, and pooling blood, which indicated that
her blood had settled after resting in the body. The blood was contained to the bedding; no blood
was on the headboard, walls, or floor.
¶ 10 The home showed no signs of forced entry. There was, however, a small shard of wood,
around 2.5 inches long, missing from the personal entry door near the strike plate and was found
on the garage floor, but the strike plate itself showed ordinary wear and there were no pry marks
on the edge of the door signaling a forced entry. Numerous people, including Angela, Kimberly,
defendant, and neighbors had a key to Darrington’s house, and a spare key was kept in an electrical
box behind her house. There were undisturbed cobwebs behind the key in that box, but not in
front of it. The box, light switches, and garage keypad were not processed for fingerprints. Of the
items that were tested, no fingerprints suitable for comparison were recovered. The house was
clean, neat, and its contents undisturbed. The home contained $2500 in cash, $1600 in gift cards,
jewelry, and Darrington’s purse, wallet, and credit card. Knives in the home were inventoried, but
nothing indicated that they were involved in the stabbing. Reports were made that a blonde female
in athletic clothing was seen running through yards in the neighborhood, and two people were seen
-3- 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
in Darrington’s backyard two weeks before the incident, but police were unconcerned with these
reports, as Darrington’s house was across the street from a park frequented by joggers.
¶ 11 On July 19, 2014, Dr. Mitra Kalelkar performed an autopsy, noting that Darrington had on
the left side of her neck: (1) a small, superficial 1-inch incised wound; and (2) a 3-inch long stab
wound that went 2.5 inches deep into the neck, ending at the spine and severing her left jugular
vein. The deep stab wound had “sharp” lines, wavy only due to wrinkled skin that was not pulled
taut during the event, and it was inflicted with a sharp instrument used with “considerable force.”
This was a homicidal, not self-inflicted, injury. Darrington also had a bruise under her right eye,
one on the back of her right hand, and another on the left side of her chin. The bruises were fresh,
and the facial bruises could have been caused by downward pressure being placed on her face by
a pillow or hand; the bruise on her hand would be caused by pressure or hitting something. She
acknowledged that Darrington had a chip in her left thumbnail, but testified that it appeared to be
an old injury. Although, on July 18, Jennifer had received a text from Kimberly stating that there
were signs of possible sexual assault, Kalelkar testified that there were no signs of sexual assault.
Darrington’s stomach was empty, meaning that she had not eaten for at least three hours or more
before her death. The cause of death was hemorrhage due to the deep stab wound in the neck. The
State showed Kalelkar a knife (a Recon 1 knife found in defendant’s home) and asked whether it
could have caused Darrington’s stab wounds. She answered yes, because it was sharp and the stab
wounds were made by a sharp instrument. The State inquired whether the size of the knife was
significant, and she answered, “the size perfectly fits the wound also.”
¶ 12 On cross-examination, Kalelkar clarified that she did not cast the wound or have the knife
with her when she performed the autopsy, so when she said that the knife perfectly fit the wound,
she meant only that the knife could have perfectly caused the injury. She agreed that the State did
-4- 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
not show her any other knives, and she stated that there were no knives found at the residence.
Kalelkar gave police various items, including scrapings from under Darrington’s fingernails; the
bloody clothes Darrington was wearing; pulled and combed head hair; oral, rectal and vaginal
swabs; and paper bags that covered her hands to preserve evidence. She reiterated, however, that
the examination of Darrington’s hands and fingernails showed them to be clean, there were no
signs of sexual assault, and her clothes had not been disturbed.
¶ 13 Blake Aper, a forensic scientist, testified that he did not analyze the fingernail scrapings,
swabs, hair samples, or bedding, because he was told that there were no signs of struggle at the
scene or likelihood that a sexual assault was involved. Aper was not told that Darrington had fresh
bruises, consistent with something being pushed down on her face, nor a broken thumbnail. Had
he known those facts, and to err on the side of caution, he would have made different decisions
about what to analyze.
¶ 14 A Recon 1 knife was found in a duffel bag in defendant’s house. Both tested negative for
the presence of blood. The knife had a Caucasian human head hair on it, which was tested, but
there was insufficient DNA for suitable comparison.
¶ 15 B. Police Interviews
¶ 16 On July 18, police interviewed Angela and Fritz at their home (officers explained that Fritz
has significant health issues). The interview was recorded, but not videotaped. Angela lived 10
minutes away from Darrington’s house. Angela denied harming Darrington or being at
Darrington’s house during the relevant period. In her interview, Angela said, among other things,
that she loved defendant, but did not like him anymore. She explained that she did not trust him,
believed him to be a liar, and that, while at one point she did not think he could have harmed her
mother, she was not sure anymore. Angela explained that she and defendant were co-executors of
-5- 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
Darrington’s will. Angela was due to inherit a lump sum of $50,000, with Kimberly and defendant
splitting most of the remainder of the estate. Investigators verified Angela’s whereabouts around
the time of the incident.
¶ 17 On July 19, although she lived in St. Charles, police interviewed Kimberly at the East
Dundee police station. The interview was recorded, but not videotaped. The station did not have
a dedicated interview room or built-in video-recording equipment. In her interview, among other
things, Kimberly said that the first thing that came to mind was that her brother might be
responsible and that she felt sick. She said that, when she recently visited Texas, defendant talked
with her about money problems, that he had once set fire to his house, that he “always” went to
Darrington for money, and that he got angry with her whenever she discussed the money he
accepted. Police verified Kimberly’s whereabouts around the time of the incident; however, they
did not speak with her employer or co-workers regarding her whereabouts the morning of July 18.
¶ 18 Police were aware that defendant arrived in Illinois on July 21, but they did not interview
him until July 24. Specifically, Darrington’s funeral was held on July 23. Lead investigator Daniel
Duda and Detective Brian Polkinghorn attended the funeral to watch for anything unusual, and
they parked outside the restaurant where a luncheon was held post-burial. They wanted to speak
with defendant and Jennifer before they left Illinois, and they followed defendant after the
luncheon to a house in St. Charles to determine where he was staying. Duda then called defendant,
using hands-free technology and so that Polkinghorn could hear both sides of the conversation.
Duda asked if defendant and Jennifer would come in for an interview. Defendant replied that he
planned to speak with Duda around 1 p.m. the next day. Duda suggested that they meet at the
South Elgin police department, because the location was closer to the home where defendant was
staying in St. Charles and it was more conducive to conducting interviews.
-6- 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
¶ 19 Defendant and Jennifer arrived at the police station and Jennifer was interviewed first.
Detectives Duda and Polkinghorn next spoke to defendant, in an audio- and video-recorded
interview room. They discussed that defendant was co-executor of Darrington’s estate and that,
while he claimed that he did not know dollar amounts, he stated that he knew she had an annuity,
life insurance, and stocks. Defendant claimed that his marriage had good and bad “spots,” with
the bad spots resulting from lack of time together due to the children’s busy schedules. He agreed
they employed a nanny that worked 40 to 50 hours per week. Defendant denied that he had ever
had an affair, drug problem, or gambling problem.
¶ 20 As to his personal finances, defendant explained that Jennifer earned around $190,000-
$197,000 annually, while he earned $70,000. He handled their finances, denied that money was
often “tight,” and said they were doing “fine” financially. Defendant explained that, while he and
Jennifer used to have credit-card debt, they paid it off and no longer used credit cards; rather, they
always paid in cash and saved for things. He stated that they paid around $530,000 for their current
house, claiming that they put down 20% as a down payment (although it appears that they took
out a second mortgage to make the 20% down payment and actually had no equity in the house at
purchase) and had a $3200 monthly mortgage payment. Defendant explained that they took out a
$45,000 second mortgage to put in a pool and fence. He explained that there was a lawsuit pending
against their mortgagee, because when, in 2010, they applied for refinancing for being “upside
down” on their mortgage, the mortgagee attempted foreclosure and “falsely” claimed that they had
not been making mortgage payments. Defendant estimated that they had $2000 in savings and a
total of $1500 in three checking accounts, but denied that they lived “check to check.” He noted
that they had just spent around $5000 on home repairs, and he expected that their savings would
soon be replenished with anticipated bonuses. Defendant drives a BMW. He also explained that
-7- 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
Darrington sometimes sent him money, in large amounts, because she wanted to and that was “just
the way grandma was.” He recalled that he received from her $100 on July 18 (initially he said it
was via check, but later via money order); she had sent him $1500 once when he was having a
“rough week,” (initially he said it was via check, but later said it had been transferred from her
credit card using Square, an application for electronic credit-card processing).
¶ 21 The detectives ultimately asked defendant to account for his movements on July 17-19,
2014. Defendant testified that, during those dates, there was a large continuing-education
conference held in Frisco that was relevant to his job as a physical therapist and athletic trainer.
He attended the conference while Jennifer and the kids were in Montana, visiting some of
Jennifer’s family. According to defendant, he arrived at the conference on Thursday, July 17, at
around 8 a.m. and left around 6 p.m. He then dined at the Capital Bar and Grille, which he regularly
frequented and was usually served by “Ryan.” He volunteered to the officers that he had lamb
chops, two drinks, and paid around $50 in cash, reiterating that he never used credit cards. Further,
defendant offered to provide the officers with his receipt, which he had on his person during the
interview. They accepted his offer, and he handed the receipt to them.
¶ 22 Defendant asserted that, after dinner on July 17, he went home to bed and woke late the
next morning, Friday, July 18. Because he was running late, he forgot his phone at home when he
went to the conference. Defendant stated that he ate lunch that afternoon at Jason’s Deli with a
colleague named Ed Hunt. When he got home and checked his phone, it had numerous texts and
phone messages from family concerning Darrington’s death. According to defendant, when he
called Angela, she told him that Darrington had been “smothered and sexually assaulted” and there
was blood, and that she later told him that Darrington’s left jugular vein was cut. He also reported
having read news reports saying she was stabbed.
-8- 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
¶ 23 Next, defendant told officers that, on Saturday, July 19, he checked in at the conference
around 8:30-9:00 a.m.; the only day which included a check-in, the check-in was to be performed
by completion of a test. The test, which was supposed to be completed online, “didn’t take,” so
defendant also took it on paper. 1 After the conference, he went to a gun range with his assistant
and her husband and they dined at Capital Grille. He said he paid around $120 in cash for his
portion, but then said it was “comp’ed” by Ryan, the bartender who normally served him, so, in
fact, he tipped Ryan $120.
¶ 24 Police challenged some apparent discrepancies in defendant’s statement, including, for
example, whether he had an American Express card. Defendant responded, “No. Like I said, we
don’t carry plastic.” Duda pointed out that the Capital Grille receipt defendant had produced (time
stamped 10:08 p.m. and reflecting that he was served by Melissa Balbuena) showed that he paid
$50.47 on an American Express card. Defendant thought it might be the wrong receipt, but Duda
confirmed that it was for the lamp chops and two drinks that defendant said he had ordered.
Defendant responded that he did not look at the bill, was “comp’ed” that night, and that the receipt
included “part of what we had,” (emphasis added), even though he allegedly dined alone. Duda
1 Later evidence revealed that the test was supposed to be completed by 9:30 a.m., but a
report from the survey system showed that defendant did not begin the pretest until 9:39 a.m. Of
the 400 attendees, defendant was the only one who took both an electronic and paper test. The
program chair testified, had defendant “been at the conference earlier, he would have received
multiple e-blasts and instructions that were continually repeated at the beginning of each other
session in terms of what individuals were to do.”
-9- 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
responded that, if defendant were comp’ed and the $50.47 was paid instead as a tip, it did not make
sense that he was charged tax.
¶ 25 Officers reached out to the Capital Grille employees, who stated that defendant had not
been there on July 17. Defendant was Mirandized, invoked his right to counsel, was detained, and
then released.
¶ 26 C. Follow-Up Investigation and Relevant Trial Evidence
¶ 27 The Capital Grille employees knew defendant as a regular customer; again, they stated that
they did not see defendant on July 17, he was not served by Balbuena that night, and, further, the
July 17 receipt (for lamp chops and scotch) was inconsistent with defendant’s normal order of
fruity cocktails, wine, and steak. The employees did see defendant seated at the bar, in his usual
spot, with two colleagues on Saturday, July 19. Defendant appeared haggard and distressed, and
an employee asked if he was alright. Defendant responded that there had been a death in his
family. That night, he also requested a “cash receipt” from Thursday, July 17. Defendant was
referred to a manager, who was busy, and, so, she printed a random receipt and gave it to defendant.
Around midnight, however, defendant tried calling the manager and left a voicemail asking that
she return his call; she did not do so. Then, on Sunday, July 20 at around 4 p.m., he showed up at
the restaurant and asked instead for a receipt in the $50-range from Thursday. The manager printed
a receipt in that range, assuming that he needed it for a business expense. The manager testified
that defendant never asked her to produce the receipt for the items he ordered or for a receipt
reflecting cash payment; rather, he was adamant that it be a receipt in the $50-range.
¶ 28 The athletic-trainer conference was held at a hotel and convention center, but there were
no surveillance cameras in the public areas of the facility. Ed Hunt attended the conference and
saw defendant there between 9:30 and 11 a.m. on Thursday morning, but he did not see defendant
- 10 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
again on July 17 or July 18. However, defendant called Hunt at 8:45 p.m. on Friday, July 18, and
asked Hunt to send him an email stating that they met for lunch that day. Although Hunt did not
eat lunch with defendant at Jason’s Deli on July 18, he assumed that defendant might be seeking
reimbursement for a business expense and sent defendant the requested email.
¶ 29 One of defendant’s colleagues saw defendant at the conference the morning of July 17; she
did not see him again there until after the first lecture on Saturday, July 19. However, she agreed
that he may have attended different lectures.
¶ 30 On July 16, defendant went to an AT&T store in Frisco and purchased a pre-paid GoPhone.
The employee who sold it to him said defendant told her that his name was “Joe Smith” and that
he wanted a “cheap, untraceable” phone, because he was traveling “cross country” and needed it
only for GPS. He did not want to provide a full address for activation. The phone was activated
with the number (469) 416-2729 and was traceable via GPS and cell towers “pinging,” but not
traceable in the sense that no social security number was required for activation. Also on July 16,
around 2:15 p.m., defendant purchased a prepaid American Express gift card and funded it with
$260 in cash.
¶ 31 John Daloise, one of defendant’s close friends, testified that, in July 2014, defendant asked
if he could borrow one of Daloise’s company’s trucks or vans. When Daloise said that there were
none available, defendant asked Daloise if he would rent a car for him, specifically one with good
gas mileage and unlimited miles. Daloise asked why defendant could not rent one himself, and
defendant explained that he wanted to move some things without Jennifer knowing. Defendant
also asked Daloise to put the rental car in Daloise’s name. At 10:09 p.m. on July 16, 2014, Daloise
texted defendant to inform him that he had not yet heard back from the rental agency. Defendant
responded the next morning, informing Daloise that he no longer needed the car. Later, after
- 11 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
Darrington’s funeral, defendant told Daloise that he was a suspect in the murder. When Daloise
asked defendant why and whether he did it, defendant responded that he could not talk about it.
¶ 32 After trying to obtain a car from Daloise, defendant called Kevin Kratz, his cousin by
marriage on his father’s side. Defendant asked Kratz to rent a car for him so that he could travel
to Arizona to speak with his father about the possibility of divorce. As background, Kratz had
accompanied defendant on a trip to Las Vegas in June 2014, where defendant tried to collect
money from a female. Defendant expressed on that trip that his relationship with Jennifer was
declining and that he was thinking about getting a girlfriend. Kratz also knew that Jennifer and
the kids were in Montana, so he agreed to rent the car from Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Addison,
Texas. Around 10 a.m. on July 17, defendant picked up Kratz, a pharmacist, at the medical center
where he worked and then drove to the Enterprise. Kratz provided his name, license, phone
number, and credit card to secure the car, while defendant provided an address and phone number
that Kratz did not recognize, but believed to be connected to a pre-paid phone. They rented a gray,
four-door, Ford Focus with a Texas license plate and 21,609 miles on the odometer. Kratz drove
the rental car off the lot, and they switched cars in a restaurant parking lot. Defendant left his
iPhone in his BMW that Kratz was now driving and gave Kratz a new phone number by which to
reach him. Defendant left with the rental car at 11 a.m. on July 17. Kratz returned to work.
¶ 33 Over the next two days, defendant contacted Kratz by a phone number with a (469) area
code. On Thursday afternoon, defendant asked Kratz to turn off defendant’s iPhone and, on
Thursday evening, asked Kratz to turn on the iPhone again and to place it in the cabinet on the
back patio of defendant’s house, which he did. The next day, July 18, Kratz went to work and
defendant called him throughout the day to give him travel updates, at one point mentioning
Albuquerque, which made sense because Kratz thought defendant was going to Arizona.
- 12 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
¶ 34 Kratz next saw defendant the evening of July 18. It was too late to return the rental car, so
Kratz drove the BMW to defendant’s house. As payment towards the rental car, defendant gave
Kratz $60 in cash and a prepaid American Express gift card that he said had $100 left on it. Kratz
accepted those, but declined defendant’s offer to also take the prepaid cell phone that defendant
had been using. Defendant told Kratz that he had not gone to Arizona, but had instead traveled to
Illinois and visited a “friend at a park.” He told Kratz that his grandmother had been fatally
stabbed. The news left Kratz shocked and scared. When Kratz later went online to verify the
amount of money remaining on the prepaid American Express card, the transaction history showed
that the card had been used “to and from Dundee, Illinois.” He was afraid, because the card had
been rented in his name, the gift card in his possession showed purchases to and from Dundee, and
a person in Dundee was dead. Afraid, Kratz destroyed the three-digit code on the back of the card.
¶ 35 The transaction history for the American Express gift card reflected that the card was used
to make purchases: (1) on July 17, at 5:44 p.m., in Oklahoma, and at 11 p.m., in Collinsville,
Illinois; and (2) on July 18 at 3:13 a.m. in West Dundee, Illinois (less than three miles from
Angela’s house), at 10:13 a.m., in Missouri, and at 2:26 p.m., in Oklahoma. Surveillance videos
showed a man that Kratz and Jennifer testified looked to be defendant at the Missouri stop, while
other videos and an Illinois Tollway violation photo showed the Ford Focus rental car.
¶ 36 Cell records of defendant’s iPhone and a GoPhone with the (469) area code were
introduced. For each communication or use of data, the phone connects to a cell site or tower and
records reflect the longitude and latitude of the cell site or tower used. As a phone user travels
between states, the phone hits different towers, and each tower generates a record. The records
reflect that the GoPhone was in use from July 17 at 11:03 a.m. through July 18 at 9:32 p.m. Cell
site tower activations or “pings” reflected travel to and from Illinois, including at 1:34 a.m. near
- 13 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
Chicago and 5:33 a.m. near an Elgin cell tower. In contrast, no calls were made from or answered
by defendant’s iPhone between July 17 at 10:58 a.m. through July 18 at 6:35 p.m., nor were any
messages sent by his iPhone during that almost 31.5-hour period. Defendant did not respond to
any calls, texts, or voicemails that were left on his iPhone beginning at 10 a.m. on July 18, until
later that evening. Jennifer thought it unusual that defendant did not respond to her texts and calls,
because he always had his iPhone with him. According to Kimberly, when she ultimately spoke
with defendant, he had a normal affect and tone.
¶ 37 Evidence was received that Frisco, Texas, is 924.5 miles from East Dundee (or around
1849 miles round trip), and the drive between the two cities takes around 13 hours and 54 minutes.
The rental car odometer had 23,529 miles on it when returned and, again, when first rented, the
odometer read 21,609 miles (23,529-21,609 = 1920). Exhaustive forensic testing of the rental car,
in sum, resulted in no particularly probative evidence.
¶ 38 D. Summary of Financial Evidence
¶ 39 A significant portion of the trial related to the State’s theory that defendant was motivated
to murder Darrington to obtain his inheritance. Thus, many witnesses and exhibits concerned
defendant’s finances and expenses related to escorts and prostitutes, as well as Darrington’s
finances and her generosity in giving defendant money. The evidence overall showed that
defendant had requested loans and/or received money from his family for various reasons over the
years. In 2004, he asked Angela and Fritz for money to buy a house, and they paid off $40,000 in
his credit-card debt; in 2006, he asked them for a loan for a new mortgage after a home fire, and
they gave him more than $100,000, which he paid back by borrowing money from Jennifer’s
parents; and, in 2012, he asked them to loan him $200,000 and $110,000 for a start-up business,
which they refused. After refusing him money in 2012, Angela’s relationship with defendant
- 14 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
became strained. Angela did not approve of Darrington giving defendant money to “bail him out.”
Angela was Darrington’s power of attorney and had created the online account for Darrington’s
credit card, but she explained that Darrington handled her own finances, and Angela denied seeing
Darrington’s credit-card bills, accessing her financial documents, or having knowledge of her
finances or the value of her estate. According to an attorney hired to help administer the estate,
the value of Darrington’s estate could not be determined simply by reading the will and trust
documents. It was ultimately determined, however, that Darrington’s trust had a total value of
around $807,000, including the appraised value of her house, and that defendant and Kimberly
would each inherit around $305,000-$315,000. Darrington’s life-insurance policies had death
benefits totaling $350,000.
¶ 40 In 2006, after his house fire, defendant asked Darrington to mortgage her home and lend
him $150,000, which she did not do because she was afraid to mortgage the home at her age. She
did, however, give him her credit-card number and sent him money, and their bank statements
reflected that, between January and June 2014, defendant charged more than $27,000 to
Darrington’s credit card. There were no charges by defendant after June 17, 2014. Darrington
paid each of the credit card statements on which those charges appeared. Darrington also gave
Kimberly her credit-card number, which she used to make purchases for Darrington and work, but
paid her back and did it so that Darrington could acquire the reward airline miles associated with
the card.
¶ 41 Defendant asked Kimberly at various times to send money via Western Union to someone
in Las Vegas, who he said was a former student he was helping out, but was actually a prostitute.
Kimberly was aware, in June 2014, that there were challenges in defendant’s marriage and that he
was considering divorce, and they spoke about whether defendant could afford divorce. As a
- 15 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
follow-up to their conversations, she sent defendant a text message on June 20, 2014, concerning
Texas child-support laws and that an inheritance during marriage would be considered a marital
asset.
¶ 42 Defendant spent several thousands of dollars on escorts and prostitutes. One of the women
testified that he paid her around $20,000 between December 2013 and June 2014. He also helped
her family move from Las Vegas to Missouri and was trying to set up a payment plan with her
husband to be reimbursed; in July 2104, however, he told her she no longer needed to worry about
paying him back. Her husband, however, testified that defendant did not forgive the debt but,
rather, told them to pay him back when he could. A second woman estimated that, from November
or December 2013 through July 2014, defendant paid her between $20,000 and $25,000 for her
escort services, not including the gifts he bought her (laptop, cell phone, car maintenance, clothing,
lingerie, sex toys, and summer tuition). In the summer of 2014, he paid her $3700 in cash and
Visa gift cards and $800 toward her legal fees. The escort testified that, shortly before the summer
of 2014, defendant told her that he wanted to pay off his home and give his wife money to care for
their daughters so that he could be a free man. Defendant frequently conducted his transactions
using pre-paid gift cards, MoneyGram, Western Union, Square, Green Dot and PayPal.
¶ 43 Jennifer testified that she had questioned defendant several times as to whether he was
cheating on her, and he denied it. Further, when she asked defendant about call and text activity
to a Las Vegas phone number at strange hours, he told her he had loaned $3000 to a former student,
which upset Jennifer, because defendant had denied her prior request to loan her sister some
money. Jennifer let defendant handle all of the finances, and she testified that she did not know,
until September 2014, that they were $160,000 in arrears on their mortgage payments, that their
house was in foreclosure, and that they had unpaid property taxes. There had been attempts to
- 16 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
enjoin the foreclosure and efforts at loan modification, but the foreclosure process was continuous
from 2010 to 2014. Jennifer was still living in the house at the time of trial, but the mortgage
(which was solely in her name because she was the primary breadwinner when they moved to
Texas) was still in arrears and she filed for bankruptcy. Jennifer also testified that, without her
authorization, defendant maxed-out two credit cards that she kept for emergencies, $80,000
disappeared from her individual retirement account, and a roofer who had performed repairs in the
spring of 2014 had not been paid, despite their having received a $19,000 insurance settlement.
Defendant told Jennifer that his BMW monthly payment was around $400, when it was really $689
monthly. She thought, with her base salary at $135,000 and defendant’s salary around $70,000,
that they had enough money to pay their bills. Defendant and Jennifer divorced on December 3,
2015.
¶ 44 During deliberations, the jury asked to see the cell tower “ping” PowerPoint presentation
and location of the 5:33 a.m. “ping” from July 18. Ultimately, over defendant’s objection, the jury
was shown the PowerPoint presentation. It later returned a guilty verdict.
¶ 45 On March 23, 2017, the court denied defendant’s post-trial motion and sentenced him to
45 years’ imprisonment. On April 13, 2017, the court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider the
sentence. Defendant appeals.
¶ 46 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 47 Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that gave rise to his conviction. He
argues that his conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence that was inconclusive,
misleading, and established only that he was one of many people who had the opportunity to
commit the offense. He notes that Darrington’s time of death was never established, beyond her
death having occurred between 7:53 p.m. on July 17 (when she left a voicemail on the neighbor’s
- 17 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
machine) and 9:30 a.m. on July 18 (when she was found). Defendant concedes that cell site tower
activation evidence suggested that he was near East Dundee the morning of July 18; however, he
contends that “no evidence put him at the crime scene at any point in the nearly 14-hour time frame
in which Darrington was killed.” He further contends that his “explanation to Kratz that he
traveled to Illinois to meet with a friend was also entirely reasonable,” given that he grew up in
the Dundee area and later lived in Elgin and then Huntley until 2006. Defendant asserts that his
marital issues and desire to conceal his activities from Jennifer were supported by the record.
Defendant notes that his family members were quick to cast suspicion on him and, thereafter, that
investigators did not subject them to the same surveillance and investigative techniques that he
endured, even though Angela and Kimberly both lived close to Darrington.
¶ 48 In addition, defendant finds significant that the murder weapon was never identified, and
he challenges the import of Kalelkar’s testimony that the Recon 1 knife found in his duffel bag,
which tested negative for the presence of blood, could have “perfectly” caused the wound, given
that: (1) she never compared that knife to the wound; (2) she was unaware that there were knives
found in Darrington’s home; and (3) none of the knives found in Darrington’s home were taken
into evidence or submitted for forensic testing. Similarly, defendant takes issue with the
investigation’s failure to test fingernail scrapings, bedding, or swabs from the sexual-assault kit,
on the basis that there were no signs of struggle or sexual assault, when, in fact, there was fresh
bruising on Darrington’s hands and face and she had a chipped thumbnail. He also notes that,
despite exhaustive testing, no probative evidence was found in the rental car.
¶ 49 Finally, defendant argues that the financial-motive evidence against him was misleading
and reflects the “tunnel vision” used to prosecute him. He notes that the financial evidence did
not reflect any urgent, pressing need for his inheritance and, to the contrary, it showed that
- 18 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
Darrington was generous with him and kept him flush with cash while he was living, “so he had
no reason to seek out his inheritance.” If motivated by urgent financial need, he argues, the
murderer would not have left thousands of dollars in cash, gift cards, and jewelry in her house.
Defendant challenges specific pieces of the financial evidence presented against him and, in sum,
argues that the sum of the evidence simply did not support the State’s attempt to imply that he was
under severe financial strain at the time of the offense. Moreover, defendant suggests that, despite
their testimonies, Angela and Kimberly were, in fact, aware of Darrington’s finances and that, as
Darrington willingly gave him money, effectively reducing their inheritance, they resented it. He
notes that Kimberly will now presumably inherit a larger portion of Darrington’s estate. “Others
stood to gain just as much from Darrington’s death, and [defendant] actually benefitted much more
from Darrington’s generosity in life.” In sum, defendant argues:
“[Defendant’s] family members made a concerted effort to cast suspicion on him, and
investigators scrutinized him far more than anyone else. The secretive actions he took
amidst the cloud of his infidelities and impending divorce were given a nefarious cast, he
was vilified for his involvement with escorts, and his sullied character was substituted for
actual proof. [Defendant] was no closer to the crime scene than Angela or Kimberly in the
relevant time frame, which spanned nearly 14 hours, and investigators seemed to discount
from the start the possibility that a stranger killed Darrington. No forensic evidence tied
[defendant] to the crime scene, and several potential sources of forensic evidence that
might have helped to identify Darrington’s killer were ignored. Although the State
suggested that a random knife found in [defendant’s] house was the murder weapon, it was
never positively identified as such, and none of the testing to which it was subjected
supported the State’s theory. In sum, the purely circumstantial evidence on which
- 19 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
[defendant’s] conviction rests is insufficient to prove that he committed first degree murder
beyond a reasonable doubt, and his conviction should therefore be reversed.”
¶ 50 When faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask only whether, after
viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational fact finder could
have found the elements of the offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Ward, 154
Ill. 2d 272, 326 (1992); People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985). The fact finder is responsible
for determining the witnesses’ credibility, weighing their testimony, and deciding on the
reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. People v. Hill, 272 Ill. App. 3d 597, 603-04
(1995). It is not our function to retry the defendant. People v. Lamon, 346 Ill. App. 3d 1082, 1089
(2004).
¶ 51 Here, defendant was charged with first-degree murder in violation of section 9-1(a)(2) of
the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2012)). Section 9-1(a)(2) states that, one
who kills a person without lawful justification, commits first-degree murder if, in performing the
acts that cause the death, he or she knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or
great bodily harm. Moreover:
“Proof of an offense requires proof of two concepts: first, that a crime occurred, the
corpus delicti, and second, that it was committed by the person charged. People v. Ehlert,
211 Ill. 2d 192, 202 (2004). In a prosecution for murder, the corpus delicti is the fact of
death, along with the fact that death was due to criminal agency. Id. [Where] there is no
direct evidence linking [the defendant to the victim’s] death[,] *** circumstantial evidence
is sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction if the evidence satisfies proof beyond a
reasonable doubt of the elements of the crime charged. People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 330
(2000). The trier of fact does not need to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to each
- 20 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
link in the chain of circumstances, but rather that all of the evidence taken together satisfies
the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. Id.” People v. McVay,
2019 IL App (3d) 150821, ¶ 40.
¶ 52 Here, we reject defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. A rational
factfinder could have found that the circumstantial evidence sufficiently proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by defendant. Although defendant challenges
specific pieces of evidence and their import or lack thereof, as noted above, the jury needed to be
satisfied only that the evidence taken as a whole reflected guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For
example, the jury could have discounted the absence of cobwebs in front of the key (in the
electrical box) as being either of no import or, possibly, consistent with an attempt to direct
suspicion away from those who actually owned keys. Similarly, the jury could have reasonably
disregarded the wood shard on the garage floor as normal wear and tear for the home, given that
there were no other signs of forced entry. In addition, the jury could have found reasonable
investigators’ explanations that Angela’s and Kimberly’s whereabouts the night of the murder
were established and needed no further inquiry, nor did the vague descriptions of two people in
Darrington’s yard or a female jogger give rise to a need to investigate further, as Darrington lived
across the street from a park frequented by joggers. As to defendant’s implication that
investigators targeted him solely because his family quickly cast suspicion upon him, we reject
this argument because it was reasonable for investigators to interview defendant, given his
relationship to Darrington and that he was co-executor of her estate. That additional, more focused
investigation into his statement and whereabouts were triggered from the initial interview was a
direct result of his own inconsistencies in answering the questions.
- 21 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
¶ 53 While we acknowledge that there was no forensic evidence (such as DNA, fingerprints,
etc.) directly linking defendant to the murder, the jury could have reasonably determined that the
knife found in defendant’s bag was more likely to have committed a stab wound of the width and
depth suffered by Darrington than those found in her home. Based on this court’s review of the
record, the photographed knives from Darrington’s home consisted solely of standard dining
knives and a few with serrated edges. According to Kalelkar, the stab wound was “sharp,” not
jagged consistent with a serrated knife. It was also a few inches wide, which was consistent with
the size of the straight-edged knife found in a Ziploc bag in a duffle bag in defendant’s home.
Moreover, although no DNA was suitable for comparison, a human, Caucasian, head hair was
found on defendant’s knife, which the jury could have found notable, given that Darrington, who
was Caucasian, was stabbed in the neck.
¶ 54 Defendant asserts that his position that he was having marital issues and wanted to hide his
actions from Jennifer was supported by the record, but the jury could have rejected that explanation
as simply unlikely given the lengths defendant apparently took to discuss divorce with an
unidentified individual. Indeed, defendant speculates that there could have been other reasons for
his overnight trip to Illinois, such as “visiting a friend in a park,”’ which he asserts was “entirely
reasonable.” We not only disagree that the explanation was reasonable, the jury was simply not
required to accept that explanation. We agree with the State: “[it was reasonable for the jury to
conclude [that] defendant did not leave his iPhone at home intentionally, buy a prepaid cell phone,
pay for the trip on gift card, have someone rent a vehicle for him, and make a 30-hour round trip
drive just to speak to an unidentified friend in an Illinois park in the middle of the night.” See,
e.g., People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 212 (2004) (factfinder not obliged to accept any proffered
explanation compatible with defendant’s innocence); People v. Milka, 336 Ill. App. 3d 206, 228
- 22 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
(2003) (jury was free to accept or reject explanations for defendant’s statement). Certainly, even
if defendant needed a prepaid, untraceable phone to hide from Jennifer, the jury could have rejected
the notion that a 30-hour trip in the middle of the night to Illinois, coincidentally during the time
frame Darrington was murdered, was reasonable for purposes of discussing divorce. Even setting
aside possible other reasons for a clandestine trip to Illinois, the jury was not required to reject the
most obvious and plausible one.
¶ 55 Regardless of motive, the evidence reflected at a minimum that, on the night of his
grandmother’s murder, defendant, in a car rented in another person’s name and using a prepaid
phone and gift card, was in Illinois and, at 3:13 a.m. on July 18, made a purchase in West Dundee
(less than three miles from Angela’s house, which was 10 minutes away from Darrington’s house).
While we do not recount all examples here, the jury could have found that defendant’s explanations
to family, friends, and others were repeatedly belied by the evidence. For example, he told Daloise
that he wanted a rental car to move items without Jennifer knowing, while he told Kratz that he
wanted it to travel to Arizona to talk with his father. Neither statement was true. Defendant told
investigators that he was in Texas on July 17-18. That was not true. Defendant told Kimberly and
Jennifer that money and phone calls funneled to Las Vegas were helping a former student in need,
when really they were going to prostitutes. He told Jennifer that his monthly car payment was
around $400, that the mortgage had been paid, and that he was not cheating on her. None of that
was true. Thus, when defendant argued that there was no motive to kill his grandmother, financial
or otherwise, the jury could have found his argument not credible, in light of the totality of the
evidence, which included a clandestine trip to Illinois in the middle of the night with extensive
attempts to cover his tracks, a weapon that could have caused the fatal injury, a history of big
spending and financial wheeling and dealing, and explanations routinely belied by the evidence.
- 23 - 2020 IL App (2d) 170284-U
¶ 56 In sum, defendant’s numerous arguments relating to the alleged weaknesses in the evidence
and the overall sufficiency of the State’s case were presented to and rejected by the jury. People
v. Baugh, 358 Ill. App. 3d 718, 737 (2005). Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, the
evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction.
¶ 57 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 58 For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County is affirmed.
¶ 59 Affirmed.
- 24 -