People v. Christiansen, 59870

Decision Date20 February 1987
Docket NumberNo. 59870,59870
Citation107 Ill.Dec. 198,506 N.E.2d 1253,116 Ill.2d 96
Parties, 107 Ill.Dec. 198 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Edgar CHRISTIANSEN, Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

James J. Doherty, Public Defender of Cook County, Chicago, for appellant; Ronald P. Alwin, Asst. Public Defender, of counsel.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Mark L. Rotert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, for appellee; Richard M. Daley, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago, Joan S. Cherry, Thomas V. Gainer, Jr., Thomas P. Needham, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.

Justice THOMAS J. MORAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Edgar Christiansen, was indicted by a Cook County grand jury for the armed robbery of Lawrence Berry and the murders of Laura Steinke and Mousa Musleh (Mousa). Defendant was charged with the following offenses in connection with the Berry incident: armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 18-2); unlawful restraint (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 10-3); theft (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 16-1(a)(1)); theft exceeding $300 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, pars. 16-1(a)(1), (e)(3)); armed violence predicated on armed robbery, armed violence predicated on unlawful restraint and armed violence predicated on residential burglary (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 33A-2). Defendant was charged as follows in connection with the deaths of Steinke and Mousa: intentional murder, knowing murder, and felony murder based on armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, pars. 9-1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), respectively); armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 18-2); armed violence premised on knowing murder, armed violence premised on armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 33A-2). Also in connection with the shooting death of Mousa, the defendant was charged with unlawful restraint (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 10-3) and armed violence predicated on unlawful restraint (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 33A-2). Because three other persons were present at the time Mousa was killed, defendant was charged with the following additional counts: unlawful restraint of Samih Alkossa, Chris Churney, and Issa Musleh (Issa), the victim's brother (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 10-3), and armed violence based on the unlawful restraint of Alkossa, Churney, and Issa (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 33A-2).

Defendant pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and waived his right to a jury trial on the issue of his guilt or innocence. The indictments were consolidated for trial, at the conclusion of which the court found that the defendant was not insane or mentally ill at the time these offenses were committed, thereby precluding a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill. The court then made the following findings. With respect to the armed robbery of Berry, the court found the defendant guilty as follows: guilty of armed robbery; guilty of unlawful restraint which was merged into the conviction for armed robbery. Defendant was found guilty on both counts of theft. The court found the defendant guilty of two counts of armed violence predicated respectively on armed robbery and unlawful restraint, merging these convictions with the prior conviction for armed robbery. The court found the defendant not guilty of armed violence predicated on residential burglary. With respect to the shooting death of Steinke, the court found the defendant guilty of intentional, knowing, and felony murder. The court also found the defendant guilty of armed robbery. There was a finding of guilty on two counts of armed violence premised on knowing murder and felony murder which were merged into the convictions for murder. The court further found the defendant guilty of armed violence based on armed robbery, merging this conviction with the conviction for armed robbery.

The court also found as follows with regard to the shooting death of Mousa: guilty of intentional, knowing, and felony murder; guilty of armed robbery; guilty of unlawful restraint, which was merged into the conviction for armed robbery; guilty on two counts of armed violence based on knowing murder and felony murder, which were merged into the convictions for murder; guilty of armed violence based on armed robbery, which was merged with the conviction for armed robbery. The court made no finding on the charge of armed violence based on unlawful restraint. The court further found the defendant guilty of the unlawful restraint of Alkossa, Churney, and Issa, as well as guilty of armed violence based on the unlawful restraint of Alkossa, Churney, and Issa.

The State indicated its decision to seek the death penalty for the murder convictions pursuant to section 9-1(d) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 9-1(d)). The court accepted defendant's waiver of the sentencing jury (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 9-1(d)(3)) and proceeded with the death penalty hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that defendant was born March 27, 1937, and found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was 18 years of age or older at the time of the murders. The court also found beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of two statutory aggravating factors: the defendant had been convicted of two murders under the Illinois murder provision (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 9-1(b)(3)) and the defendant actually killed the two victims in the course of two separate felonies, armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 9-1(b)(6)). The court then proceeded to a hearing in aggravation and mitigation (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 9-1(c)). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that there were "no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude the imposition of the sentence of death" (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 9-1(h)). The court, therefore, sentenced the defendant to death.

The court proceeded to impose sentence on the remaining convictions as follows: for the armed robbery of Berry, defendant was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment and three years' mandatory supervised release. In addition, defendant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of five years' imprisonment on the two convictions for theft. With respect to the Steinke incident, defendant was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment plus three years mandatory supervised release for armed robbery, to run concurrently with the sentence for the armed robbery of Berry. As to the Mousa incident, defendant again was sentenced to a concurrent term of 30 years' imprisonment plus three years mandatory supervised release. On the convictions for unlawful restraint and armed violence based on the unlawful restraint of Alkossa, Churney, and Issa, defendant was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment plus three years supervised mandatory release, to run concurrently to the prior sentences for the armed robberies of Berry, Steinke, and Mousa. Because the death penalty was imposed, the cause comes before this court for direct review as provided by the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, sec. 4(b)) and Supreme Court Rule 603 (87 Ill.2d R. 603).

We summarize the facts relative to each indictment as follows. With regard to the armed robbery of Berry, it was stipulated that, if Berry were to testify, he would state that he returned to his apartment on the afternoon of April 20, 1981, and found the defendant inside; that defendant was armed with a handgun; that defendant took $51 in cash and some gold chains from him; that he also took a .357 Smith and Wesson magnum and a box of .38-caliber bullets, a stereo, and a blue suitcase. Further, it was stipulated that Berry and the defendant each drank a beer while the defendant was deciding what to do with Berry; that defendant directed Berry to tie his own feet; that he then tied Berry's hands together and tied them to a radiator. By further stipulation, Berry would have testified that defendant stated he would call the police to release Berry and that Berry was to tell the police that he was robbed by a black male. Additionally, it was stipulated that the defendant had his face covered during the robbery; that Berry viewed a lineup on April 23 and made an identification of the defendant after he requested that the defendant say "what am I going to do with you." The parties also stipulated that a consent search of defendant's apartment produced a stereo, a blue suitcase, and a box of .38-caliber bullets.

The parties also stipulated to the facts surrounding the shooting death of Steinke, an employee of a store called The Alley. Pursuant to the stipulation, Fernando Carballo would state, if called to testify, that he picked the defendant out of a lineup and identified him as the person he saw leaving The Alley on April 21, 1982. It was stipulated that the body of Steinke was found on April 21; that Steinke had been shot twice in the head; that these wounds were the cause of death. Additionally, it was stipulated that Sergeant Smith, firearms expert for the city of Chicago police department, if called to testify, would state that on April 22 he performed tests establishing that the bullets which killed Steinke were fired from the .357 Smith and Wesson magnum .38-caliber handgun stolen from Berry and recovered from the defendant at the time of his arrest. By further stipulation, it was established that approximately $200 was missing from the cash register of The Alley, as well as some posters and lighters. Finally, it was stipulated that two posters and two lighters, identified as being property of The Alley, were uncovered during a consent search of defendant's apartment on April 23.

Live testimony during the State's case in chief established the facts surrounding the shooting death of Mousa. First to testify was Issa, the victim's brother. He stated that the defendant entered his grocery store at closing time, 8 p.m., on April 22, 1982, took a grocery cart, placed a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • People v. Brown
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1996
    ... ... We see no reason to depart from this court's prior rulings here. People v. Christiansen, 116 Ill.2d 96, 128-29, 107 Ill.Dec. 198, 506 N.E.2d 1253 (1987); People v. Szabo, 113 Ill.2d 83, 95, 100 Ill.Dec. 726, 497 N.E.2d 995 (1986); ... ...
  • People v. Franklin
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1990
    ... ... 342, 499 N.E.2d 1355), and prosecutorial comments that are invited and not prejudicial do not constitute error (People v. Christiansen (1987), 116 Ill.2d 96, 125, 107 Ill.Dec. 198, 506 N.E.2d 1253). Here, the comments made during closing arguments were based on [135 Ill.2d 101] ... ...
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 27, 1991
    ... ... (People v. Christiansen (1987), 116 Ill.2d 96, 118-19, 107 Ill.Dec. 198, 506 N.E.2d 1253.) We find that ample evidence was introduced at trial to support the jury's ... ...
  • People v. Henderson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 30, 1990
    ... ... (See People v. Christiansen (1987), 116 Ill.2d 96, 122, 107 Ill.Dec. 198, 506 N.E.2d 1253 (supreme court will not lightly overturn trial court's findings made during aggravation ... ...
  • 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