People v. Addison

Decision Date23 December 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-675,76-675
Citation56 Ill.App.3d 92,13 Ill.Dec. 933,371 N.E.2d 1025
Parties, 13 Ill.Dec. 933 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn ADDISON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
[13 Ill.Dec. 935] T. Lee Boyd, Jr. and Isaiah S. Gant, Chicago, for defendant-appellant

Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Lee T. Hettinger, Joan S. Cherry, and Rimas F. Cernius, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.

SULLIVAN, Presiding Justice.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to a term of 30 to 60 years. He appeals and presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the arrest and to suppress evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred in giving an accountability instruction; and (3) whether certain prosecutorial conduct denied him a fair trial.

During the afternoon of June 3, 1974, Dale Shippe, a laundry truck driver, and a co-employee, Melvin Boyd, stopped to make a pickup at 7723 South Yates, where Boyd entered the building. Shippe remained in the vehicle's driver's seat, completing some paper work. While working, he noticed two men the taller of whom he identified as defendant walk past the truck and stop about 30 feet ahead. Defendant then approached Shippe and asked that laundry be picked up at his home. Defendant said his name was Solomon and gave an address of 8508 South Commercial. Shippe recorded this information and confirmed its accuracy by reading it back to defendant. During their conversation, the shorter man also approached and he reached into the truck and pulled the keys from the ignition. Defendant then said to Shippe, "Sit still and be cool, you know what this is." After defendant closed the driver's door, both men went to the front of the truck where they confronted Boyd when he emerged from the building carrying a laundry bag. Defendant then pulled out a gun and ordered Boyd to be cool, but Boyd removed the laundry bag from his shoulder, placed it in front of himself, and attempted to push past the two men. As defendant inquired of the shorter fellow, "Should I shoot him," Boyd managed to run past them into the truck. He shut the passenger door behind him. Defendant then placed the palm of his hand against the top center of the passenger window, curled his fingers around the top edge, and pulled down the window, aimed the gun at them, and said, "Now, sit still or I'll blow your head off." Boyd then opened the door and told them that neither he nor Shippe had the key to the safe in the truck. In response, defendant handed the gun to the shorter man and told him, "If either one of them moves, shoot them." When the shorter man suggested that they leave, defendant replied, "Let's get something anyhow." Defendant then proceeded to search Boyd, and when he attempted to unbutton his wallet pocket, Boyd pushed him. At this point the gun being held by the shorter man discharged, and Boyd fell mortally wounded. The two men then fled.

Defendant testified in his own behalf that on June 3, 1974, he was walking alone in the 7700 block of Yates, where he asked Shippe to arrange a laundry pickup at his home. Because he was living with Terry Solomon in an apartment under her name, he gave the name of Solomon to Shippe and her address which was 8208 South Commercial. As he and Shippe spoke, a man whom he knew as Angelo Jones but who he had not previously seen in the area approached the truck holding a gun. When Angelo pulled the keys out of the ignition, defendant asked what was happening and was told that he knew what this is. Angelo motioned defendant to move to the passenger side of the truck, where he stood passively during the remainder of the incident, except that at one point he asked Angelo, "Why don't you leave these people alone?" Defendant further testified that Angelo at all times had possession of the gun, that it was Angelo who "tussled" with Boyd in the truck when the gun was fired, and that he ran upon hearing the shot. He did not call the police to report the incident, because he was in fear of Angelo. He had no explanation Shortly after the shooting, Police Officer Raymond Relinski was called to the scene and, after receiving descriptions of the offenders, conducted a search of the area without success. At approximately 4 p. m., when he had completed his tour of duty, he received more thorough descriptions; i. e., that each was a black male in his early twenties one being approximately 6 feet tall, 160 pounds, with a neatly kept afro, clean shaven and medium complexion, and the other being 5'8 or 5'10 tall, 145 pounds and processed hair. In addition, he was informed that a .45 caliber pistol was used by the pair and that one of them had given the name of Solomon and the address of "8508" South Commercial.

[13 Ill.Dec. 936] of how his palm print was left on the passenger's window of the laundry truck, and he testified that he had not pulled this window down.

The next day, at approximately 1 p. m., Officer Relinski, while driving in the 8200 block of Exchange (one block away from the Solomon apartment) noticed defendant and another man crossing the street. Because he had arrested defendant on May 22, 1974, Relinski not only recognized him but also recalled that during this earlier arrest, defendant had used the name Solomon and the address 8208 South Commercial. It was determined later that day that his name was Glenn Addison, of another address, and he was then booked under that name and address. In addition, Relinski noticed that defendant matched the description of the taller robbery and homicide suspect. In order to conduct a field investigation, he stopped the police vehicle and made a U-turn; whereupon, the two men began to run. Relinski and his partner chased them for a city block in their vehicle and then on foot. Using both the vehicle's radio and portable hand radio, Relinski made several calls for assistance. Shortly after he left the vehicle, Relinski observed that the man running with defendant had dropped a metal object, which Relinski recovered and found to be a .45 caliber automatic pistol. Relinski then resumed the chase and saw defendant run into the apartment building at 8208 South Commercial Avenue, with Officer Kostro and another police officer, who had joined the chase in response to a radio message for assistance, in close pursuit.

Officer Kostro testified that he ran up the stairs behind defendant and observed him run into apartment 3E and close the door. Numerous police officers had by this time converged on the building. Relinski was stationed outside to prevent escape from the apartment windows, while Kostro radioed for his supervisor. Meanwhile, Terry Solomon exited apartment 3E and, when asked about defendant, she said no one was in the apartment. After refusing to identify herself or to answer questions about the man who had just run into her apartment, she was arrested and taken to the building's adjoining parking lot. Outside, she was told that the police would use force, if necessary, to enter the apartment and, according to Relinski, she volunteered the keys. Obtaining her keys, Kostro used them to unlock the door, but a chain guard prevented it from opening completely. Through this opening, Kostro observed defendant run from one room to another down a hallway. Kostro announced his office several times and asked that defendant come out, stating that the building was surrounded. Finally Kostro kicked the door, breaking the chain lock, and he and other officers entered the apartment. Hearing the breaking of glass, Kostro entered a bedroom and observed a broken dresser mirror. Defendant was discovered secreted behind what appeared to be dresser drawers but which were, in reality, false fronts simulating drawers in place.

To the contrary, defendant testified that he had not been chased by the police on June 4; that the police had simply broken into the apartment he shared with Terry Solomon without warning and arrested him. It was Ms. Solomon's testimony that at approximately 1 p. m. on June 4, defendant entered the apartment, and she left three minutes later to purchase a newspaper. She saw no policemen on the way out, but on her return with the newspaper she was confronted by two officers in the parking At the police station after his arrest, defendant was palm printed and placed in a lineup, from which Shippe identified him as the taller of the two men. Between 2 and 3 p. m., after Miranda warnings were read to him and he stated that he understood them, defendant told Officer Dioguardi that he knew nothing of the robbery and homicide. About 5 p. m., after Miranda warnings were again given to him, defendant was informed that his palm print matched the latent print taken from the passenger window of the laundry truck. At this point, defendant said that he had not been involved and was not present at the scene of the occurrence but that he knew Angelo Jones had committed the offenses. At about 10 p. m., after defendant was informed that he had been identified by an eyewitness, defendant told Dioguardi that he was with Angelo on June 2 when the latter obtained a .45 caliber automatic pistol, and that on June 3 he and Angelo were walking in the 7700 block of Yates when Angelo suggested they rob the laundry truck. During the course of the robbery, he said that Angelo was pointing the gun while he was trying to get Boyd's wallet, but when Boyd resisted and attempted to push Angelo, the gun discharged accidentally.

[13 Ill.Dec. 937] lot adjoining the building and was asked to produce identification. She [56 Ill.App.3d 97] refused to answer any questions, and they entered the building. They returned to the parking lot minutes later and again asked her to identify herself. She again refused and was arrested, and her keys were taken from her.

At trial, a fingerprint technician testified that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • People v. Stamps
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 23, 1982
    ...the approach of police officers are properly considered strong factors in the decision to make an arrest. (People v. Addison (1977), 56 Ill.App.3d 92, 13 Ill.Dec. 933, 371 N.E.2d 1025.) When Zito entered the lavatory, he observed the bag lying on top of the wastebasket under the sink and Hi......
  • People v. Scarpelli
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 28, 1980
    ...belief by a person of reasonable caution that the defendant was committing or had committed an offense. (People v. Addison (1977), 56 Ill.App.3d 92, 98, 13 Ill.Dec. 933, 371 N.E.2d 1025; People v. Beall, 42 [37 Ill.Dec. 920] at 457, 355 N.E.2d 756; People v. Cribbs (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 750,......
  • People v. Montgomery
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 27, 1980
    ...uncertain. Some appellate courts required only probable cause (see e. g., People v. Bailey, supra; People v. Addison (1st Dist. 1977), 56 Ill.App.3d 92, 13 Ill.Dec. 933, 371 N.E.2d 1025); others required more than mere probable cause (see e. g., People v. Abney (4th Dist. 1978), 58 Ill.App.......
  • People v. Walters
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 20, 1979
    ...Even slight evidence upon a given theory of the case will justify giving an instruction. Kalpak ; People v. Addison (1st Dist. 1977), 56 Ill.App.3d 92, 13 Ill.Dec. 933, 371 N.E.2d 1025; People v. Clifford (1st Dist. 1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 915, 349 N.E.2d The record indicates that the instruct......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT