People v. Brown

Decision Date28 May 1991
Docket NumberNo. 1-88-2430,1-88-2430
Citation158 Ill.Dec. 396,214 Ill.App.3d 836,574 N.E.2d 190
Parties, 158 Ill.Dec. 396 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Randolph N. Stone, Cook County Public Defender (Elizabeth Burke, James Reddy, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Cook County State's Atty., Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Joseph Brent, Tyra H. Taylor, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Justice BUCKLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant William Brown appeals his conviction and 60-year sentence for two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 12-14(a)(3)) and his conviction and 15-year concurrent sentence for aggravated kidnapping (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 10-2(a)(3) ). On appeal, defendant contends that the circuit court committed reversible error in (1) admitting evidence of defendant's other crimes under the modus operandi exception, (2) refusing to allow defendant to argue consent in his closing argument, and (3) refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of consent. Defendant also contends that his conviction and sentence for aggravated kidnapping was improper where any detention of complainant was merely incidental to the commission of the underlying sexual assault offense and that his extended 60-year sentence for aggravated criminal sexual assault is excessive.

Complainant testified that in August 1986, she was a 16-year-old high school student on summer vacation working at Burger King and Wendy's fast food restaurants. On August 6, at 10:30 p.m., complainant completed work and walked towards her "L" station. On the way, she met defendant for the first time, who she identified in court. She testified that defendant said "hi" to her and she responded "hi." As she continued to walk, defendant followed her and told her that she "looked like an old friend of his that he was in love with." Complainant continued walking and defendant followed her saying he was "going that way." While waiting for her train, defendant began talking about a clerical job available at Water Tower Place and that he would help her get the job and to write out a resume for the position. Defendant also offered to give her $200 for some nice clothes but complainant declined. As complainant's train approached, the two made arrangements to meet at Wendy's the next day.

At Wendy's the following day, complainant was informed that she needed to accompany defendant to his office to fill out her resume because defendant's papers were located there. The two proceeded by bus to a building which complainant later learned to be the Roosevelt Hotel. Complainant testified that she did not know where she was going and that she never had been to a hotel in her life. Although she had seen hotels on television and in magazines, this hotel did not look like any of those. After entering the hotel, defendant instructed complainant to sit and wait while he went and spoke to the clerk at the desk. Defendant returned and instructed complainant to follow him.

Complainant and defendant then took an elevator to the room where the alleged assault took place. Complainant saw a bed in the room and "whispered" that she did not want to go in there. She entered anyway because defendant was "rushing" her into the room and the elevator operator was standing at the entrance way.

Inside the room, complainant sat down on a chair and defendant on the bed. Defendant talked to complainant until she told defendant that she wanted to start working on the resume. Defendant stated that he first had to ask her the same question that he had asked 26 other girls. Defendant noted that only one of those girls had answered the question correctly and wondered whether complainant would get it right. Defendant asked complainant, "if a dear friend to you did you a favor regardless of what it was, and they asked you to do them a favor, would you do it." Complainant responded, "it depends on what the favor is." Defendant told her she answered the question incorrectly and asked it of her again. Complainant testified, "I started catching on, I say, well, if it has to do with sex, no, and then I got up." She continued, "I was about to walk out of the room. And he said you better sit down before I knock you out." Complainant sat back down and defendant told complainant that if she did not cooperate he was "going to knock you out and take it anyway, so its better if you just take off your dress." Complainant refused, and defendant threatened to knock her out the window. Complainant took off her dress and was told to lie on the bed.

Defendant got on top of complainant and began licking her neck. Complainant requested defendant to stop, but he told her "all I want to do is just lick you all over." Defendant took off complainant's bra and began licking and biting her breast, and then he worked his way down to her vagina. Complainant was crying the whole time and repeatedly told defendant to stop. Defendant told her that he would not get off her until she acted like she was enjoying the assault. He continued biting the victim's vagina and complainant, while crying, pretended like she enjoyed the assault. Defendant next pulled off his pants and put his penis inside complainant's vagina but was unable to get it in all the way because complainant was "real dry" and kept "pushing it out" by moving around. Defendant then tried to stick his penis in her anus but was unsuccessful because complainant continued to move around.

Defendant then got off complainant and handed her a towel to wipe herself. She kept the towel for evidence. After both got dressed, defendant told her "to stop crying because if [she goes] downstairs crying he was going to knock her out." The two proceeded downstairs and walked towards an "L" station together. Defendant gave complainant a "Plain Truth" magazine and wrote a phone number on the back and told her he would meet her the next day in front of Water Tower Place. Complainant went home and immediately took a bath. She called the number on the magazine but nobody at that number had heard of defendant's name. Complainant then told her mother about the assault and the police were then called. Complainant told one of the officers that she had been sexually assaulted, and the police later took complainant to the hospital.

At the hospital, complainant told the nurse that she believed that defendant had anal intercourse with her because she had a painful bowel movement. The State and defendant stipulated to the testimony of the examining physician, Dr. Thomas Peters. Dr. Peters would testify that complainant told him that she was sexually assaulted and that defendant possibly engaged in anal intercourse with her against her will. The doctor found no signs of trauma and complainant's hymen was still intact. The doctor was unable to complete the vaginal exam because of complainant's great fear.

On December 15, 1986, after defendant was taken into custody, complainant positively identified defendant in a police line-up. Both complainant's mother and the police officer who responded to the call were later called by the State and confirmed that complainant had stated to them that she was sexually assaulted by defendant.

On cross-examination, complainant testified that defendant's briefcase contained "fake" resumes. She admitted that she was "suspicious" of defendant but that he also reminded her of a teacher at school. She stated that she knew Water Tower Place consisted of businesses and was in a wealthy neighborhood. Complainant also admitted that she voluntarily accompanied defendant to the hotel and that, while she did not know she was entering a hotel, she did notice a desk clerk and an elevator operator. Complainant also admitted that she did not mention to the desk clerk or to anyone in the hotel lobby or on the way to the train that she had been sexually assaulted.

Christine Anderson, an expert witness from the Chicago Crime Laboratory Serology Unit, testified for the State. She stated that there was no semen present in the vaginal and rectal swabs taken at the hospital. She also stated, however, that a negative result was not uncommon and could be caused by there being no intercourse, no ejaculation, or if the portion of the orifice tested did not contain any semen. She also stated that a bath could wash away any semen.

Over defendant's objection, two women testified to having been similarly assaulted by defendant. J.H. testified first. She stated that on November 4, 1986, she had just finished working at Mrs. Fields Cookies and went to a Burger King restaurant on State Street. While ordering food, a man, who J.H. identified as defendant, approached her and told her that she looked like a lady named Pamela and that he could get her a clerical job at Water Tower Place. Defendant asked her whether she would do a favor for someone if that person did a favor for her. J.H. responded that it all depends on the favor. Defendant asked her if she had a resume and told her that he already had one and would make copies for her. She did not know where they were going but was interested in the job because defendant was making the job sound "so good." She took a State Street bus with defendant to the Roosevelt Hotel. She knew what was happening to her was unusual, but she continued with defendant into the hotel. After defendant checked in with the clerk, they proceeded to the room.

Inside the room, J.H. asked defendant about the resume. Defendant said there was no resume. She told defendant that she wished to leave, and defendant said, "you ain't going to leave now cause you here now and I want to get what I can." She again asked to go, but defendant threatened that he would hit her. Defendant threatened to hit her three times and told her he wanted to have sex with her....

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • People v. Siguenza-Brito
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 19, 2009
    ...Ill.Dec. 731, 600 N.E.2d 1189 (1992) (finding that a separate, independent factor was used only once); People v. Brown, 214 Ill.App.3d 836, 847, 158 Ill.Dec. 396, 574 N.E.2d 190 (1991) (observing that the defendant's challenge to his aggravated kidnapping and aggravated criminal sexual assa......
  • People v. Robinson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 17, 2016
    ...cases on that basis, as they also did not require proof of a “malicious intent to deceive.” See, e.g., People v. Brown, 214 Ill.App.3d 836, 839–41, 158 Ill.Dec. 396, 574 N.E.2d 190 (1991) (affirming aggravated kidnapping conviction where the defendant lured the victim to a hotel by promisin......
  • People v. Overlin, 4-92-0578
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 11, 1993
    ...be used, not only to show who committed the crime, but whether a crime was committed at all (People v. Brown (1991), 214 Ill.App.3d 836, 845, 158 Ill.Dec. 396, 401-02, 574 N.E.2d 190, 195-96; People v. Middleton (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 984, 990, 350 N.E.2d 223, 228), although Middleton appear......
  • People v. Gutierrez
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 12, 1992
    ...within the first district on the issue of the admissibility of "other crimes" evidence was explained in People v. Brown (1991), 214 Ill.App.3d 836, 845, 158 Ill.Dec. 396, 574 N.E.2d 190. Brown cited People v. Barbour (1982), 106 Ill.App.3d 993, 62 Ill.Dec. 641, 436 N.E.2d 667, for the propo......
  • 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