People v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 22 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-86-0409,1-86-0409 |
| Parties | , 166 Ill.Dec. 312 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Randolph N. Stone, Public Defender of Cook County (Karen A. Popek and Stephen L. Richards, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Jack O'Malley, State's Atty., County of Cook (Renee Goldfarb, Asst. State's Atty., and Kathleen F. Howlett, Sp. Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
MODIFIED ON DENIAL OF REHEARING
Defendant Keith Coleman appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County, which, following a jury trial, found defendant guilty of murder and two counts of armed robbery and concurrently sentenced him to 35 years imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for armed robbery. For the following reasons, we affirm.
The record on appeal indicates the following. Defendant was charged by indictment with the murder of Elijah Taylor and the armed robbery of Elijah Taylor and Ruby Terrell. Dennis Fox, Nathan Haley and Kenneth Walls were also charged in this matter.
Before trial, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress statements made by defendant to the police on the grounds that the statements were obtained in violation of his right to counsel under both the fifth and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution.
Defendant testified that at the time of the first interrogation relating to this case (January 30, 1985), he had three indictments pending against him and was incarcerated in the Cook County Department of Corrections. Defendant then testified that the first officer to interrogate him in this matter, Detective O'Connor, thought that defendant knew his constitutional rights. It is unclear from defendant's testimony whether Detective O'Connor only partially read defendant his Miranda rights or whether the Miranda warnings were perfunctorily read. The defendant presented his attorney's business card to Detective O'Connor, but did not explicitly ask for an attorney to be present during the interrogation. Defendant had been placed in a lineup relating to the Taylor murder; defendant testified that Detective O'Connor told him that he had been positively identified in that lineup and that Dennis Fox had made a statement implicating him in the Taylor murder. Defendant denied involvement in the murder at that time.
Defendant was also interrogated by Officers Tuider and McKinley. Defendant testified that he showed these officers his attorney's card as well, but that Officer Tuider declined to call the attorney because it was after 5 p.m. Defendant gave an oral statement to the officers after about an hour of interrogation and later gave a written statement to an Assistant State's Attorney. Later, a court reporter was called in. According to defendant, the officers did not read him the Miranda warnings at this interrogation session.
Leonard Petersen, an employee of the Cook County Department of Corrections, testified to the policies of the jail which permitted interrogation concerning crimes unrelated to defendant's incarceration without first attempting to contact defendant's attorney.
Detective O'Connor testified that he read the required Miranda warnings to defendant and that defendant stated he understood them. O'Connor denied that defendant showed him an attorney's business card and that he told defendant that someone else had given the police a statement about the case.
Assistant State's Attorney Zehe testified that he also interviewed defendant on January 30, 1985. Zehe also testified that he read the Miranda warnings to defendant, after which defendant agreed to speak to Zehe about the case. Zehe stated that the warnings were read again prior to defendant making a statement in the presence of a court reporter. Zehe denied knowing that defendant was represented by counsel on the unrelated charges, but admitted knowing that defendant was incarcerated on other charges at the time of the interrogation. Zehe and defendant went over the court-reported statement together and re-read the Miranda warnings.
The trial court found that defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel had not attached on the Taylor murder charges. Consequently, defendant's sixth amendment rights had not been violated. The trial court further found that full Miranda warnings were given to the defendant and that defendant had freely and voluntarily waived his fifth amendment rights. Therefore, there was no violation of defendant's fifth amendment right to counsel either. The trial court thus denied the motion to suppress defendant's statements.
The common law record indicates that three of the four men charged in this matter moved for severance from a joint trial (the fourth, Kenneth Walls, entered into a plea agreement with the State). Dennis Fox's motion was granted; the other two motions were denied. Thus, defendant and Nathan Haley were tried jointly.
Kenneth Walls testified pursuant to a plea agreement with the State's Attorney's office under which the State agreed to recommend concurrent ten year sentences for the armed robbery in this case and in an unrelated case in exchange for his testimony. At this time, Walls had known Nathan Haley and defendant for a few years and Dennis Fox for five or six months. The four men were close friends and Walls often visited the apartment of Fox and Haley to talk and "get high." Walls further testified on direct examination that defendant was occasionally at this apartment, but testified on cross-examination that defendant always accompanied him to the apartment.
During the late evening of December 17 and early morning of December 18, 1984, Walls was socializing, drinking beer and smoking marijuana and "sherm" (PCP-coated marijuana) at Fox's and Haley's apartment; defendant was there also. Between midnight and 1:30 a.m., Walls, Fox, Haley and defendant drove to a White Castle restaurant at the corner of 79th and Loomis.
The White Castle was diagonally across the street from the Impala Lounge, which was owned and operated by Elijah Taylor, who (according to Elijah's brother's testimony) was also known as "Pete." Walls testified that he and defendant had been in the Impala Lounge a couple of times but that defendant was not a regular patron.
The four were eating hamburgers in their parked car. Walls testified that Dennis Fox returned to the White Castle for carry-out service and defendant walked over to the Impala Lounge, but did not enter because the door was locked. Walls testified that defendant and Fox returned to the car, at which time defendant stated that the Impala Lounge was about to close, that Pete keeps a lot of money and suggested robbing Pete.
Two women and a man then walked out of the Impala Lounge and drove away. Walls testified that defendant said the car was Pete's but that Pete was not the man who had left. A short time later, the car returned. On direct examination, Walls testified that defendant said "Pete's car is back," but admitted under cross-examination that, at Fox's trial the previous week, Walls had testified that Fox said this. The car was driven by one of the women who had previously left. The woman wore a beige coat.
Walls further testified that a man holding a paper bag then got in the car, but admitted on cross-examination that he told the police that there were two women in the car, not one, and that the man held several bags. Walls testified that defendant identified the man as Pete, stated that he probably had money in the bag and suggested that the four men should rob Pete and that it would be easy to do so.
Walls then testified that both defendant and Fox suggested that they follow Pete's car. According to Walls, defendant directed him to drive to 68th Street, then to an alley running parallel to Loomis Street. The car stopped. Fox asked defendant to accompany him, but defendant declined on the ground that Pete might recognize him. Fox asked Walls, but then said "you're driving." Finally, Fox asked Haley, who agreed to go with Fox.
Walls testified that as Fox and Haley left the car, he saw Fox withdraw a pistol from his trousers, but admitted on cross-examination that he had testified at Fox's trial only that he could see the handle of a gun protruding from Fox's waistband. Walls stated that the gun belonged to defendant, but later admitted that he had kept the gun at his house in a tennis racket case. Walls admitted to not seeing defendant with the gun that evening, not knowing how long Fox had possessed the gun and not hearing any discussion between defendant and Fox concerning the gun that evening.
Walls further testified that Fox and Haley ran down a gangway, while he and defendant remained in the car with the motor running, but with the lights and radio off. According to Walls, he was about to drive away when defendant told him not to worry because Fox and Haley knew what they were doing. Walls also testified that he feared that Fox would injure him and defendant if they drove away, but later admitted that when he had previously told the police about these events, he did not mention defendant's alleged assurances.
Walls then heard a woman scream. A short time later, Fox and Haley came running back from the gangway and jumped into the car. Defendant had opened a back door of the car. Fox was holding the gun and a beige coat resembled the one worn by the woman who drove Pete's car; Haley held a woman's purse. Fox ordered Walls to go and the car sped off. When asked what happened, Fox stated that a "punk" grabbed him and that he "popped" the punk. Fox searched a wallet, but found no money; Fox also mispronounced Elijah Taylor's name...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rojas
...had only implicated the defendant for reward money and leniency in his own criminal proceedings); People v. Coleman, 223 Ill.App.3d 975, 998-99, 166 Ill.Dec. 312, 586 N.E.2d 270 (1991) (otherwise approving of the use of redirect examination to explain why a witness did not initially implica......
-
People v. Wydra
...117 Ill.Dec. 927, 521 N.E.2d 38, cert. denied (1988), 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 187, 102 L.Ed.2d 156; People v. Coleman (1992), 223 Ill.App.3d 975, 999, 166 Ill.Dec. 312, 586 N.E.2d 270, modified on other grounds (1993), 155 Ill.2d 507, 187 Ill.Dec. 479, 617 N.E.2d 1200.) The references by th......
- People v. Coleman
-
People v. Jefferson
...given instructions are readily understandable and sufficiently explain the relevant law. (See People v. Coleman (1991), 223 Ill.App.3d 975, 1004, 166 Ill.Dec. 312, 332, 586 N.E.2d 270, 289-90, appeal granted (1992), 145 Ill.2d 637, 173 Ill.Dec. 8, 596 N.E.2d 632.) Furthermore, the denial of......