[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County. No. 16-CF-902,
Honorable Stephen P. McGlynn, Judge, presiding.
for Appellant, Hon. Brendan F. Kelly, States Attorney, St.
Clair County, Patrick Delfino, Director, David J. Robinson,
Deputy Director, Chelsea E. Kasten, Staff Attorney, Office of
the States Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor.
for Appellee, William E. Carroll, Justin M. Whitton.
Ill.Dec. 638][¶ 1] The defendant, Anthony
Firestine, was charged with several offenses in connection
with an incident in which two of his brothers were shot. The
defendant admitted to police that he shot one of his brothers
in the foot. He also admitted firing five additional shots
but told police that he did not know whether any of those
bullets hit his other brother. He claimed that all six shots
were intended as warning shots. The defendant filed a motion
to suppress his statement to police, arguing that, after he
invoked his right to counsel, the investigating officer
continued to ask him questions. The St. Clair County circuit
court granted the defendants motion. The State appeals,
arguing that the defendant made only a limited invocation of
his right to counsel by stating, "I dont want to answer
that question without my lawyer." We affirm.
2] The events leading to the defendants arrest took
place at the home of his brother, John. The defendant and his
son, Mark, went to Johns home to confront the defendants
brothers, John and Joe. According to the defendant, Joe owed
money to various family members, including him. During the
encounter that took place, Joe was shot in the foot, and John
was shot in the leg. Both the defendant and Mark were
arrested in connection with these events.
3] During the early morning hours of July 5, 2016,
Officer Jeffery Hartsoe questioned the defendant in custody.
Officer Hartsoe provided the defendant with the warnings
required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86
S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), both verbally and in
writing. Officer Hartsoe then told the defendant that he was
there because his brother Joe had been injured. He explained
that other individuals had given him statements about how
that happened. Officer Hartsoe told the defendant that he
wanted to get his "side of the story" so that he
would not have to "rely on only one persons side."
The defendant indicated that he wanted to hear what others
had said first. When asked why, he told Officer Hartsoe that
he wanted to know what people were saying about him. The
following exchange then took place:
"OFFICER HARTSOE: Did you shoot your brother, Joe,
THE DEFENDANT: Did I shoot him?
OFFICER HARTSOE: Mmm hmm.
[433 Ill.Dec. 639] THE DEFENDANT: No.
OFFICER HARTSOE: Did you shoot him in the foot?
THE DEFENDANT: I dont want to answer that question without
OFFICER HARTSOE: Okay. Did you shoot John?
THE DEFENDANT: Did I shoot ...