People v. Silagy
| Decision Date | 22 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 53776,53776 |
| Citation | 77 Ill.Dec. 792,101 Ill.2d 147,461 N.E.2d 415 |
| Parties | , 77 Ill.Dec. 792 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Charles SILAGY, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Michael B. Weinstein, Darrell Panethiere, Jack Donatelli, Asst. Attys. Gen., Chicago, for appellee.
Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Springfield, Lawrence Bapst, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Charles M. Schiedel, Supervising Atty., James G. Woodward, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for appellant.
On February 15, 1980, the defendant, Charles Silagy, was arrested in connection with the February 14, 1980, murders of Cheryl Block and Anne Waters in Danville. He was later charged by information in the circuit court of Vermilion County with the commission of both murders. After a jury found him guilty of both crimes, he chose to represent himself at the sentencing hearing, made a confession in open court, and asked that the death penalty be imposed. The jury sentenced him to death, and he requested that the sentence be carried out without delay. The defendant waived the filing of a post-trial motion, but the circuit court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. The defendant, through his counsel, has appealed directly to this court under the Constitution of Illinois (Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, sec. 4(b)) and under our Rule 603 (87 Ill.2d R. 603).
The bodies of Cheryl Block and Anne Waters, who were sisters, were discovered during the morning of February 14, 1980. Both women died as a result of massive hemorrhaging caused by multiple stab wounds. Acting on information supplied by his employer, Silagy was arrested in Louisville, Kentucky, the following day by Louisville police. Officers of the Vermilion County sheriff's office traveled to Louisville to return the defendant to Illinois. While there, they took and recorded a statement from the defendant in which he denied harming the women. The defendant later made another recorded statement.
According to the statements, the defendant, who lived in a trailer with Cheryl Block, his girlfriend, and her sister, Anne Waters, drove them to a male strip show at a local night club on the evening of February 13, 1980. Silagy spent the next two hours at a weekly meeting of the local chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous. He returned later to the club and talked with Rodney DeVaux. After the show ended, the defendant stated, he began to drink and got in an argument with Cheryl and Anne. He was asked to leave the club after slapping beer mugs and a pitcher off the table at which they were sitting. Two witnesses testified that Silagy was very apologetic about this as he left the club. He later returned to the club and offered to pay for the broken glassware. Silagy again argued with both Cheryl and Anne outside the club. DeVaux drove Anne home and Cheryl left with the defendant.
In his first statement at Louisville, Silagy told the police that he drove Cheryl to a different local tavern and left her there. He said he returned home, argued with Anne, and left the trailer without harming her.
In his second statement, the defendant said that he and Cheryl continued to argue as they drove to another tavern. As they did, he began to choke Cheryl. He continued:
Silagy then drove home, entered the trailer, locked the door, and started washing his hands and face when Anne knocked at the door. When Anne refused to leave, he
Silagy quickly left the trailer after packing various personal items. He first drove to a local service station for gas. The attendant testified that the defendant "seemed real friendly, real happy" at the time. He continued on until "I saw some red lights down ahead of me * * * and so I took a side road * * * and went to my mother's house." He had an emotional conversation with his mother, he said, and both were crying when he left a short time later.
While driving towards Paris, Illinois, the defendant stopped "and plotted my route * * * and I asked a trucker * * * if he could give me directions to Louisville, Kentucky, and he did, and I took those instructions."
Robert Block, the defendant's employer, who was not related to Cheryl Block, received a phone call on February 14, 1980, at which the defendant asked that his paycheck be sent to him at a hotel in Louisville. Block gave this information to the local police. When arrested at the hotel by the Louisville police, Silagy was carrying two "ordinary pocket knives." Although very belligerent when first arrested, the defendant, according to the testimony of two detectives who interviewed him, responded to questions in an intelligent manner and did not exhibit any unusual behavior while in custody.
At arraignment, the defendant pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and demanded a jury trial. In various pretrial motions defense counsel requested that the prosecution be barred from asking potential jurors any questions pertaining to the death penalty, that the prosecution be compelled to disclose whether it would seek the death penalty, and that the death penalty statute be declared unconstitutional. The defendant challenged the discretion given the State's Attorney whether to seek the death penalty, the vagueness of the statute's provisions, and the absence of a reasonable-doubt standard regarding mitigating factors. The defendant's motions were denied. Sixty-nine prospective jurors were examined during voir dire and, over the defendant's objection, nine were excused from service for cause after the trial court found that they were unable to impose the death penalty under any circumstances.
At trial, witnesses appeared to support or attack the defendant's defense of insanity. Barbara Lister, the defendant's mother, testified to behavioral problems during his childhood. She testified that he was "very hard to control" and had a bad temper. She recalled episodes when her children were severely beaten by their drunken father at least once a week. After her divorce, the defendant, who was 13 at the time, was taken from his mother's custody because of her sexual promiscuity with a number of men. When Charles returned to her, Mrs. Lister testified that he was very unruly and raped his younger sister and raped the witness herself in 1966 and 1967.
Dr. Marvin Ziporyn, a psychiatrist who was called by the defendant as a witness, testified that he had examined Silagy in June 1980, and earlier in October 1976, concerning an unrelated incident. Based on his 1976 and 1980 examinations, and the defendant's history of physical violence and sexual assault, Dr. Ziporyn formed the opinion that Silagy was "an extremely dangerous individual prone to acts of violence and sexual aggression against women." Ziporyn testified that Silagy suffered from extreme psychopathology, a mental disease he labeled "a psychoneurosis, specifically the subtype known as anxiety reaction or anxiety state," which could be activated by "external stress plus anything that would wipe out control of impulses such as drugs or alcohol." After listing a number of situations and stress factors that might have impaired Silagy's control system on February 14, 1980, Ziporyn concluded that a combination of these factors sent Silagy "off into a temporary psychotic state." He further testified that this condition could have lasted for hours or for as long as a week and consequently it would not be unusual for the defendant to engage in routine behavior after the deaths of the two women. He testified that loss of intellectual function and general awareness was not the issue, "it was a question of impulse control." The witness concluded his testimony by offering the opinion that at the time Cheryl Block and Anne Waters were killed, Silagy lacked the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law as a result of his mental disease.
Dr. Arthur Traugott, a psychiatrist in private practice who testified for the prosecution, also examined Charles Silagy concerning the events surrounding the deaths of Anne Waters and Cheryl Block. Dr. Traugott testified that from his examination and from background...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bloom
...sentencing body with all relevant mitigating evidence and this could best be done through counsel." (People v. Silagy (1984) 101 Ill.2d 147, 77 Ill.Dec. 792, 808, 461 N.E.2d 415, 431, cert. den. 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 227, 83 L.Ed.2d 156.) In that case, as here, the trial court had granted......
-
State v. Reeves
...allow the sentencer to consider any other mitigating factor which might be applicable. In People v. Silagy, 101 Ill.2d 147, 163-64, 77 Ill.Dec. 792, 800, 461 N.E.2d 415, 423 (1984), the court The defendant's final challenge to the statute is that the language of the mitigating factor we hav......
-
Williams v. Chrans
...and any of the circumstances of the offense" that militate against the imposition of the death sentence. People v. Silagy, 101 Ill.2d 147, 164, 77 Ill.Dec. 792, 800, 461 N.E.2d 415, 423, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 227, 83 L.Ed.2d 156 (1984). The criminal rules of evidence are rel......
-
Wallace v. State
...to assure that the death penalty will not be imposed arbitrarily. Hamblen, 527 So.2d at 804 (quoting People v. Silagy, 101 Ill.2d 147, 181, 77 Ill.Dec. 792, 461 N.E.2d 415, 431-32 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 227, 83 L.Ed.2d 156 We therefore hold Appellant's decision not to......
-
Capital punishment in Illinois in the aftermath of the Ryan commutations: reforms, economic realities, and a new saliency for issues of cost.
...procedures sufficiently protect against the arbitrary imposition of capital punishment. (citations omitted). (8) See People v. Silagy, 461 N.E.2d 415, 433-34 (Ill. 1984) (Simon, J., dissenting) (noting that four of the seven sitting justices have said and continue to adhere to the view that......
-
The Death Penalty -- For and Against.
...in choosing whether to seek the death penalty, and this may result in arbitrary application of the statute." People v. Silagy, 461 N.E. 2d 415, 433 (Ill. 1984) (Simon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). This series of opinions is discussed in Bienen, supra note (60) See e.g. an......