People v. Cloutier

Decision Date21 October 1993
Docket NumberNo. 72074,72074
Citation190 Ill.Dec. 744,156 Ill.2d 483,622 N.E.2d 774
Parties, 190 Ill.Dec. 744 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Robert CLOUTIER, Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Charles M. Schiedel, Deputy Defender and Timothy M. Gabrielsen, Asst. Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for appellant.

Roland W. Burris, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Jack O'Malley, State's Atty., Chicago (Terence M. Madsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Renee G. Goldfarb and Margaret J. Faustmann, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago of counsel), for the People.

Justice NICKELS delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant, Robert Cloutier, was found guilty of the aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12--14(a)(4) (West 1992)) and murder (720 ILCS 5/9--1(a) (West 1992)) of Alice Cogler. At a separate sentencing hearing, the same jury found defendant eligible for the death penalty on the ground that the murder had been committed in the course of the felony of aggravated criminal sexual assault. (720 ILCS 5/9--1(b)(6)(c) (West 1992).) Finding no mitigating circumstances sufficient to preclude the imposition of the death penalty (720 ILCS 5/9--1(g) (West 1992)), defendant was accordingly sentenced to death. Defendant's sentence of death has been stayed pending direct appeal to this court. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 4(b); 720 ILCS 5/9--1(i) (West 1992); 134 Ill.2d Rules 603, 609(a).

Defendant raises numerous challenges on appeal, which can be broadly divided into errors concerning jury selection, errors occurring during the guilt phase of his trial, errors that occurred at his sentencing hearing, and, finally, constitutional challenges to the Illinois death penalty statute. Defendant's specific allegations will be discussed more fully as we consider each alleged error.

The victim, Alice Cogler, was 4 feet 8 inches tall and weighed 86 pounds. She worked in the afternoon and early evening of January 27, 1990, as a bartender at a neighborhood bar in the Chicago neighborhood of "Clearing." She remained after the end of her shift at 6 p.m. until the bar closed at 3 a.m. At that time, only the manager, the manager's spouse, the victim, and defendant remained on the premises. Defendant had frequented the bar daily for the prior month, had become friends with the manager and casually knew the victim by her first name. After telling the manager that she was giving defendant a ride home, the manager saw the victim leave with defendant in a two-door, brown Oldsmobile, which actually belonged to the victim's fiance. However, the victim had used the car exclusively for the prior three years, and the interior had been spotless and undamaged only two days before when last seen by her fiance.

An acquaintance, Jeffrey Sesak, saw defendant later at 4:30 a.m. at another neighborhood bar and introduced defendant to Susan Bradford. Together with a group of people including Sesak and Bradford, defendant again remained at that bar until it, too, closed. At that time, defendant left with the group to continue the party at Sesak's home. Sesak's girlfriend sat in the front seat of the brown Oldsmobile, which defendant was driving. When Sesak attempted to get in the back seat, defendant stopped him with the explanation that a friend, whose head Sesak saw sticking out from beneath a coat, was sleeping in the back seat. Thus, Sesak sat in front with his girlfriend and defendant. At that time, Sesak noticed that the headliner and driver's side visor of the car were torn. After stopping at a liquor store, Bradford started to place a 12-pack of beer in the back seat of the victim's car, but was stopped by defendant. Defendant explained that he did not have a driver's license and did not, therefore, want the liquor in the car. On arriving at Sesak's home, Sesak suggested defendant's sleeping friend also come inside to "sleep it off," but defendant declined, saying his friend could sleep in the car.

When the gathering at Sesak's broke up, defendant offered Bradford a ride home. After initially heading in the direction of Bradford's home as directed, defendant instead pulled into an alley, saying he had to urinate. However, he locked the passenger door with one hand while at the same time covering Bradford's mouth with his other hand. Defendant told Bradford to do as he asked and that he did not want to hurt her. Defendant then pulled Bradford's hair and turned her to face the back seat, where defendant uncovered the dead body of the victim. Defendant threatened Bradford that she would face a similar fate if she did not do as defendant asked. Defendant then kissed Bradford and began fondling her. Bradford removed her coat, shirt, and At 7 a.m. the same day, defendant encountered Elizabeth Halili at the gas station where she worked as she began to open the station for business. After helping Halili retrieve equipment used to measure the gas levels, defendant came into the station to buy a can of soda. As Halili began to make change, he grabbed her and took the cash from the register, and defendant then abducted Halili in the brown Oldsmobile. Defendant again drove to an alley. When Halili refused to undress as directed, defendant ripped her blouse and began choking her when she tried to open the passenger door of the car, which was locked and from which the lock post had been removed. Defendant then showed Halili the victim's body in the back seat of the car and again threatened that she would end up like the naked dead woman if she did not do as he said. Halili removed her shoes and slacks, and then another struggle ensued during which defendant ripped Halili's panties off and hit Halili in the face repeatedly. Although very petite, Halili eventually scratched defendant, kicked him in the groin, and made a lunge for the open driver's door and escaped. Defendant then drove off and left Halili wearing only her torn blouse with a tank top underneath.

[190 Ill.Dec. 749] shoes, but told defendant her necklace was caught on her shirt to stall for time. As defendant began to untangle her necklace, Bradford jumped out of the car, and defendant tried unsuccessfully to pull her back into the car by her hair. Following Bradford out of the car, defendant punched, kicked, and choked her. Defendant left Bradford in the alley dressed only in her bra and slacks when something apparently startled him, but threatened to find and kill Bradford as he left.

Marie Goodman testified to a fourth similar incident a short time later the same day. In contrast to the other women, however, Goodman had known defendant since the prior fall, having met him under a different name at the bar where she worked. At that time, defendant had without invitation joined a group of people Goodman invited to her home after the bar closed. Prior to January 1990, defendant had arrived unannounced at Goodman's home several times to ask her out. In the eight days immediately preceding January 28, 1990, defendant had made daily such appearances, which Goodman persisted in declining.

At approximately 7:30 a.m., defendant appeared at Goodman's apartment and asked her to have a friend watch her three-year-old son so she could accompany him to breakfast. When she again refused, defendant asked to wash up because of a fight he had been in, to which Goodman acquiesced. Defendant returned between 10 and 10:30 a.m., at which time he again asked Goodman to have a friend watch her son, but eventually both Goodman and her son accompanied him to breakfast. As they returned, defendant tucked his hair in his jacket and placed Goodman's son on his shoulders as they approached several police cars. Goodman's son remained outside to play, but defendant returned to her apartment to use the washroom. Once inside, defendant grabbed Goodman by the throat, pulled her down onto a mattress, ripped her shirt off, choked her, and forced her to touch his genitals. Defendant fled when Goodman's son returned.

Defendant was arrested on February 1, 1993, based on a police bulletin identifying him as the perpetrator in the Bradford and Halili incidents and as a suspect in the case of the missing victim and another woman. Although defendant had car keys in his pocket, he was on foot when arrested. When asked why, defendant told police that the keys included in the inventory of his property belonged to the other missing woman, Cynthia Cooney, whom defendant admitted killing in the early morning hours of January 29, 1990, and whose body he had dumped in the Des Plaines River. Defendant told police where Cooney's car was located, and her torn panties were recovered from under the front seat of the car. Two newspapers, dated January 31, 1990, and February 1, 1990, were also found in the car. Cooney's slight 5 foot 3 inch body, wearing only part of her black camisole and shirt, was recovered from the river. A white bra had been stuffed in her mouth Defendant also admitted killing the victim and revealed the location of the brown Oldsmobile, from the trunk of which the victim's body was recovered. The victim was lying spread-eagle and wearing only her watch and socks. A fan belt was wrapped around her neck. The victim's sweater and boots were recovered from inside the car, but her panties and slacks were not found. Nor was the missing clothing of Halili and Bradford found in the brown Oldsmobile. A pillow, which the victim had used to see above the steering wheel when driving, was also recovered. A used tampon was recovered from the floor of the back seat together with some beer cans. There was blood on the victim's face, abrasions on her knees and one arm, and bruises on her neck and face. In addition, there was blood and fecal matter on her buttocks and vaginal area.

[190 Ill.Dec. 750] and down her throat. Cooney's jeans, on which with the teeth of the zipper had been broken, leggings with a similarly damaged zipper, and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
189 cases
  • Winfield v. Dorethy
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 13 Abril 2020
    ......Stovall was killed and Garrett, injured, though who shot them—or even how many people shot them—was not immediately clear. Police arrested Winfield as the primary suspect. He ultimately was indicted for the murder of Stovall, the ... See, e.g. , Lara , 368 Ill.Dec. 155, 983 N.E.2d at 964 ; People v. Cloutier , 156 Ill.2d 483, 190 Ill.Dec. 744, 622 N.E.2d 774, 784 (1993). 3 In People v. Holmes , 67 Ill.2d 236, 10 Ill.Dec. 210, 367 N.E.2d 663 (1977), ......
  • People v. Buss, 81911.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 15 Abril 1999
    ...are so closed by bias and prejudice that they cannot apply the law as instructed in accordance with their oath." People v. Cloutier, 156 Ill.2d 483, 496, 190 Ill.Dec. 744, 622 N.E.2d 774 In Illinois, a defendant's right to an impartial jury does not include the right to examine jurors himse......
  • Davis v. City of Chi.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 29 Abril 2014
    ...” (Emphasis added.) People v. Williams, 192 Ill.2d 548, 573, 249 Ill.Dec. 563, 736 N.E.2d 1001 (2000) (quoting People v. Cloutier, 156 Ill.2d 483, 507, 190 Ill.Dec. 744, 622 N.E.2d 774 (1993)). ¶ 85 There is no showing in this case that the isolated references in the opening statement subst......
  • People v. Ehlert
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 20 Mayo 2004
    .......         As noted above, the circuit court convicted defendant of the murder of her newborn. Proof of an offense requires proof of two concepts: first, that a crime occurred, or the corpus delicti, and second, that it was committed by the person charged. People v. Cloutier, 156 Ill.2d 483, 503, 190 Ill.Dec. 744, 622 N.E.2d 774 (1993) . In a prosecution for murder, the corpus delicti consists of the fact of death and the fact that death was produced by a 811 N.E.2d 626 criminal agency. People v. Garrett, 62 Ill.2d 151, 172, 339 N.E.2d 753 (1975) . In addition, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Jury Selection
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • 1 Mayo 2013
    ...apply the law as instructed in accordance with their oath. People v. Buss , 187 Ill 2d 144, 718 NE2d 1 (1999); People v. Cloutier , 156 Ill 2d 483, 622 NE2d 774 (1993). Theoretically, the answers to questions during voir dire form the basis for challenges. Challenges for cause are discussed......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • 1 Mayo 2013
    ...342 Ill App 3d 696, 795 NE2d 887 (2003), §6:10 People v. Clinton , 397 Ill App 3d 215, 922 NE2d 1118 (2009), §21:60 People v. Cloutier , 156 Ill 2d 483, 622 NE2d 774 (1993), §§2:110, 2:120, 2:210, 2:240 People v. Cloutier , 178 Ill 2d 141, 687 NE2d 930 (1997), §6:180 People v. Cole , 172 Il......

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