People v. Crowder
| Decision Date | 30 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1204,80-1204 |
| Citation | 161 Ill.App.3d 1009,113 Ill.Dec. 798,515 N.E.2d 783 |
| Parties | , 113 Ill.Dec. 798 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas CROWDER (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Steven Clark, Deputy Defender, Patricia Unsinn, Asst. Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.
Richard M. Daley, State's Atty. of Cook County, Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, Michael E. Shabat, James S. Veldman, Karyn Stratton, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel, for defendant-appellant.
In a jury trial defendant Thomas Crowder was convicted of murder and sentenced to an extended term of 60 years. On appeal he contends: (1) the prosecution improperly used their peremptory challenges to exclude women from the jury; (2) defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial; (3) defendant was prejudiced when an in camera hearing concerning his possible danger to his wife, a State witness, was held outside of his presence; (4) the trial court erroneously restricted defense cross-examination; (5) admission of evidence of defendant's arrest for unrelated crimes was unduly prejudicial; (6) improper closing argument denied defendant a fair trial; (7) defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.
We affirm.
Defendant has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. Accordingly we will summarize that evidence only to the extent necessary for consideration of the issues raised.
Two of defendant's alleged accomplices, Earl and Derelon McDade, testified for the State. Earl, 18 years old at the time of trial, testified that on October 8, 1978, defendant told him that the victim, Tony Ross, had set him up on a "reefer bust" and he was going to pay him back. Earl and Derelon both testified that the following day they and Enzie Williams accompanied defendant when he abducted Ross at gunpoint from a parking lot and drove him to the back lot of a factory in Chicago.
Earl admitted driving defendant's car for part of the trip and then holding the gun on Ross when defendant took over the driving. At the factory lot defendant, who again had the gun, forced Ross to step down. He then sent Earl and Enzie to park the car. When they returned Ross was on his knees, with injuries to his head. He was begging for his life, saying this was a mistake. Defendant, holding a business-card-size piece of paper, said he knew the victim had done this. He then picked up a green board. Earl turned his head, heard seven or eight cracks, and never looked back at the victim. He and his brother returned to the car.
Derelon, who was 16 years old at the time of the crime, testified that after they arrived at the factory lot and Earl left to park the car, defendant forced Ross to his knees and beat him about his face with the gun. Defendant told Ross he had "messed up" his family and he was going to kill him. When Earl and Enzie returned, defendant asked the three of them what to do with Ross. Derelon said to just beat him, Enzie said to kill him, and Earl said nothing. Defendant, who Derelon recalled had earlier said he knew Ross had set him up, picked up a card the size of a business card. He then obtained an ice pick from Enzie and tried to force it into Ross's chest. Ross resisted, begging for his life, and Derelon never saw it enter Ross. (Earl denied ever seeing an ice pick.) Defendant then dropped the ice pick, picked up a green board, and repeatedly struck Ross on the head with it. Derelon confirmed that his brother was facing in the other direction as this occurred.
After these blows were struck Ross fell to the ground, appearing to Derelon to be dead. On defendant's instructions Derelon and Earl threw the board away and then went to the car. In 15 minutes Enzie and defendant rejoined them and they all drove away.
Earl admitted that at the parking lot that day he had smoked five or six marijuana cigarettes and had drunk a quart of wine in the half hour before the abduction. However, he stated that although he was "really gone" and was drunk he had a clear memory of what took place. Earl also admitted that while in jail he had signed a statement saying defendant had nothing to do with the Ross killing. Earl explained that he had not read the statement before signing it. Defendant, who was in jail with him at the time, had prepared it and had told him it was a motion to quash arrest which would free Earl in 120 days. Earl also admitted that he was charged with murder in the case but the State had promised to drop charges if he cooperated. He had been told by his lawyer that cooperation could help him avoid the electric chair.
Derelon admitted that he had been told he could be tried as an adult. After "volunteering" to testify for the State he was transferred to the juvenile authority from an adult facility.
Ross, still alive, was found by the police later that afternoon. A nail-studded green board, identified by Derelon and Earl as resembling the one used by the defendant, was found nearby. The neurological surgeon who treated Ross testified that he remained unconscious until his death on October 20, 1978. The cause of death was severe brain trauma caused by blows which could have been administered by the board found at the scene.
Defendant's wife Dorothy also testified for the State, relating a series of incriminating statements and actions by the defendant. On October 9 at 11:55 p.m., the night of the incident, she heard defendant tell his nephew, Perry Castleberry, that he did not have to worry about Ross anymore because he had killed him. At their home Dorothy saw defendant's clothes in the bathtub with blood on them. Defendant told her he had cut himself working on a car, but she saw no injuries on him. The next morning defendant took the clothes and left with Enzie Williams, who was Dorothy's brother. Defendant told Enzie he was going to burn them because they were evidence.
On October 15 defendant again told Castleberry he did not have to worry about Ross because he had "iced" him. On the 16th defendant said if he stayed away for five years the murder charge would be dropped. That same day defendant, Dorothy, their children, Enzie and Earl went to defendant's brother's home in Gary. Defendant told Enzie that he had helped defendant with the murder and so was an accomplice.
On October 30 they went to Detroit where Dorothy rented an apartment. On November 7, 1978, defendant pulled a gun on them, saying they were all in it together and nobody was going anywhere.
Dorothy admitted falsely telling the police that she knew nothing of the incident. According to Dorothy, as late as August 3, 1979, (trial began August 14) she still planned to testify for her husband. The defendant had asked her to lie. However a week later she decided to testify for the State.
Several other State witnesses provided corroborating testimony. Chicago Police Officer Glen Godbold testified that on October 5, 1978, he spoke to Tony Ross and gave him a card with his name and number. On October 7 he arrested defendant and several other people for certain misdemeanors. However those arrests were not based on any conversation with Ross. Sharlene Griffin testified that on the afternoon in question she saw defendant and Enzie Williams approach Ross in the parking lot. Enzie told Ross to come into the alley where they wanted to talk to him. Defendant, Enzie, Ross, and the McDade brothers then all went into the alley. Griffin recalled that defendant looked angry.
Linda Carter, a former girl friend of Tony Ross, testified that on October 8, 1978, defendant told her she would not see him or Ross anymore. Debbie Robinson, who lived with Perry Castleberry, testified that on October 15 she overheard defendant tell him they did not have to worry about Ross "messing" with the family business because he "took care" of Ross.
Defendant presented no witnesses in his own behalf.
OPINION 1.We find no merit to defendant's contention that he is entitled to a Batson hearing (Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69), because of the State's use of peremptory challenges to exclude women from the jury. As this court recently held in People v. Zayas (1987), 159 Ill.App.3d 554, 110 Ill.Dec. 94, 510 N.E.2d 1125, a Batson claim requires a showing that a prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race. This male defendant lacks standing to challenge the exclusion of women from the jury on this ground. Furthermore, defendant's reliance on his Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community is also unavailing. As we also noted in Zayas the United States Supreme Court has specifically declined to extend the fair cross-section requirement to petit juries. Lockhart v. McCree (1986), 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1765, 90 L.Ed.2d 137, 148; Buchanan v. Kentucky (1987), --- U.S. ----, ----, 107 S.Ct. 2906, 2913, 97 L.Ed.2d 336.
2.
We also find no merit to defendant's contention that he was not brought to trial within 120 days as required by the Speedy Trial Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 103-5.) The record establishes that at the hearing on defendant's motion for discharge defendant withdrew his motion, apparently because he believed the motion would be unsuccessful. Defendant accordingly has waived this issue. (People v. Pearson (1981), 88 Ill.2d 210, 58 Ill.Dec. 739, 430 N.E.2d 990.) We would also note that in any event our computation establishes that when delays attributable to defendant are excluded he was brought to trial within 98 days, well within the requisite time period.
3.
Defendant also contends he was prejudiced because he was barred from certain in camera proceedings concerning his wife's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Markiewicz
... ... However, our research reveals no case law indicating that plain error always occurs when the court fails to instruct the jury of the limited purpose for which evidence of other crimes is admitted ... On the contrary, in People v. Crowder (1987), 161 Ill.App.3d 1009, 1017, 113 Ill.Dec. 798, 515 N.E.2d 783 the court found that a defendant waived the issue of the prejudicial admission of other crimes evidence by failing to object [246 Ill.App.3d 44] when the evidence was admitted during trial and by failing to seek any cautionary ... ...
-
People v. Blackwell, 73240
... ... (See People v. Washington (1993), 257 Ill.App.3d 26, 194 Ill.Dec. 854, 628 N.E.2d 351; People v. Ashley (1991), 207 Ill.App.3d 984, 152 Ill.Dec. 868, 566 N.E.2d 745; People v. Crowder (1987), 161 Ill.App.3d 1009, 113 Ill.Dec. 798, 515 N.E.2d 783.) The potential effect of today's decision on our appellate jurisprudence should not be discounted, inviting as it does the proliferation on review of otherwise waived issues. The defendant's failure to raise an appropriate objection ... ...
-
Cleveland v. State
... ... Two other witnesses agreed that, after shooting two people and forcing a third to accompany him, Cleveland went back to the store and returned to the car with a money box. The store manager testified that a ... 2 See Murphy v. State, 596 So.2d 42 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Potts v. State, 259 Ga. 96, 376 S.E.2d 851 (1989); People v. Crowder, 161 Ill.App.3d 1009, 113 Ill.Dec. 798, 515 N.E.2d 783 (1987); Hannan v. Commonwealth, 774 S.W.2d 462 (Ky.App.1989); State v. Adams, 533 So.2d ... ...
-
State v. Gonzales
... ... See People v. Jenkins, 75 N.Y.2d 550, 554 N.E.2d 47, 555 N.Y.S.2d 10 (1990). This is so for two reasons ... First, a careful reading of ... See United States v. Hamilton, 850 F.2d 1038 (4th Cir.1988); Daniels v. State, --- Ala. ---- (filed September 21, 1990); People v. Crowder, 161 Ill.App.3d 1009, 113 Ill.Dec. 798, 515 N.E.2d 783 (1987); Hannan v. Commonwealth, 774 S.W.2d 462 (Ky.Ct.App.1989); State v. Adams, 533 So.2d ... ...