People v. Durr

Decision Date17 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-306,77-306
Citation374 N.E.2d 873,58 Ill.App.3d 525,16 Ill.Dec. 98
Parties, 16 Ill.Dec. 98 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie DURR, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
[16 Ill.Dec. 99] James J. Doherty, Public Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant; Donald S. Honchell, Asst. Public Defender, of counsel

Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.

WILSON, Justice:

Defendant was charged by indictment with the murder of Robert William Lange and the armed robbery of William Mitchell. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, pars. 9-1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), 18-2.) Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress a confession allegedly coerced by the police. Following a hearing, the trial judge denied defendant's motion. Trial was held before a jury, and defendant was found guilty of both charges. The trial judge sentenced defendant to 25-75 years for murder and 4-12 years for armed robbery, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial judge erred in excluding the testimony of a defense witness, (2) the trial judge did not afford him the opportunity to elect sentencing under the law in effect at the time of the crimes.

We affirm defendant's conviction and remand this cause for resentencing.

Motion to Suppress Hearing

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Chicago Police Officer Daniel McCarthy testified that defendant served as a police informant from March 11, 1975, until March 19, 1975, the date of his arrest for the instant offense. On March 17, 1975, McCarthy first learned of defendant's involvement in a murder on April 15, 1972, after conversing with defendant's brother-in-law, Edward Yancy.

In the late evening of March 19, 1975, McCarthy and his partners, Officers Schuttler and Kulekowskis, went to the 50th on the Lake Motel for a prearranged meeting with defendant. Thereafter, defendant was taken to the 21st District Tactical Unit, led to a room on the second floor, and informed that he was under arrest for the investigation of a homicide. McCarthy advised defendant of his rights and afterwards defendant said "Do you think I did it?" A short time later, defendant repeated his question and McCarthy told him they had a statement implicating him as one of the participants in a homicide. Defendant then stated "I can beat this in court so I'll tell you what went down." McCarthy again read defendant his constitutional rights and defendant related that he wished to talk about the homicide.

McCarthy testified that defendant made several requests of him during their conversation. Defendant asked that he not be placed in the same jail cell as his brother-in-law, that he not be sent to Stateville Penitentiary, that he be given permission to leave the state once he was eligible for parole, and that he not be put in a prison cell near an uncle who was a guard at the County Jail. McCarthy explained to defendant that he would relate these requests to the appropriate authorities.

McCarthy stated that he never promised defendant a light sentence if he confessed nor threatened him with a heavy sentence if he did not make a statement. McCarthy also never told defendant that defendant's sister had signed a written statement implicating him. After McCarthy's conversation with defendant, he was transported to Area I Homicide and placed under arrest.

During cross-examination, McCarthy explained more fully the circumstances surrounding the meeting he and his partners had with defendant at the motel. McCarthy had obtained the motel room for defendant after the latter told police that he had information pertaining to a narcotics deal. Defendant had requested $500 in cash, a woman and an unmarked car. The police agreed to meet him at the motel on the evening of the 19th ostensibly to finalize the arrangements.

McCarthy testified that defendant was placed under arrest only after they were at the police station. He was neither handcuffed Officer James Kulekowskis substantially corroborated McCarthy's testimony and also stated that he observed no marks on defendant's forehead at the time of defendant's arrest. Officer John Schuttler corroborated McCarthy and Kulekowskis' testimony regarding defendant's remark that he could "beat this in court," and the substance of defendant's requests. Schuttler heard no threats nor promises made to defendant and noticed no bruises on his forehead.

[16 Ill.Dec. 100] nor searched. The police did not threaten defendant physically or verbally nor inform him of the facts and circumstances of the murder. McCarthy further stated that he informed the assistant State's Attorney of defendant's requests and his responses to those requests.

William Maki, an assistant State's Attorney, testified that he was assigned to the Felony Review Unit on March 20, 1975. Initially he spoke to defendant alone. Maki read defendant his rights and in the presence of a court reporter and Homicide Investigator Joseph Deloughery, Maki took a statement from him. Maki did not notice anything unusual about his appearance. After being shown a photograph of defendant reflecting a dark mark on his forehead, Maki agreed that the dark mark was present on the night he took defendant's statement.

Investigator Deloughery testified that he was present at defendant's initial interview with Officers McCarthy, Kulekowskis and Schuttler. Deloughery advised defendant of his rights and asked him why he wished to confess to a murder that was three years old. Defendant responded that his conscience had been bothering him. Deloughery stated that he was also present during the taking of the statement by the assistant State's Attorney and did not recall anything unusual about defendant's appearance.

During cross-examination, Deloughery was shown a photograph of defendant bearing a dark mark on his forehead. After seeing the photograph, Deloughery acknowledged that there could have been a mark on defendant's forehead that evening. Deloughery stated that no one in his presence ever struck defendant and explained that he took a second statement because defendant had insinuated that promises had been made to him by police.

Defendant testified in his own behalf. He stated that at approximately 10:30 p. m. on March 18, 1975, he was in a room at the 50th on the Lake Motel when he noticed lights shining in his window from the direction of the parking lot. He looked outside and noticed an unmarked police car. He then heard a knock on the door and assumed it was the police so he opened it. He recognized Officers McCarthy and Kulekowskis who came in and asked him about the murder. They subsequently produced a statement they had taken from Yancy implicating defendant in the murder. One of the officers also told defendant that they had another statement to the same effect from defendant's sister. Neither officer apprised defendant of his constitutional rights. Kulekowskis searched defendant and both officers searched his room. During the course of the questioning, McCarthy sat by the door of the motel room, holding a pair of handcuffs in one hand and repeatedly hitting the handcuffs against the palm of his other hand. Defendant perceived this as a threatening gesture.

Defendant then heard another knock on the door and another officer, armed with a gun, entered and said it was time to leave. The officers handcuffed defendant and took him to the police station. At the station, one of the officers pointed to several pictures of black men hanging on the wall and stated to the effect that these were dead men. The police further told defendant that a man was murdered on Blackstone Avenue, that another person was robbed and that a woman had witnessed the crime. The police refused defendant permission to make a phone call.

The following morning, defendant told Investigator Deloughery that he had nothing to say about the murder. Officer Schuttler told defendant that he would receive a lighter sentence if he told him who During cross-examination, defendant related that he had been staying at the motel for approximately six hours before the police arrived. A woman had taken him to the room and after they spent two hours together, she gave him the key and arranged to meet him later. Defendant stated he did not know any of the officers and for a full day, refused to give a statement. It was only after McCarthy pushed him and pointed to the picture of the dead men on the wall, that he agreed to give a statement. He never told the assistant State's Attorney that he had been threatened nor did he seek medical treatment.

[16 Ill.Dec. 101] else was involved in the murder. Defendant denied knowledge of the crime. Defendant further testified that during the course of the questioning at the police station, he was granted permission to use the washroom and Kulekowskis accompanied him. While defendant was in the washroom, McCarthy came in and hit him on the side of the neck, causing him to bump his head on the tile wall. After this incident and additional threats from McCarthy, defendant decided to give a statement. In answering the assistant State's Attorney's questions, defendant repeatedly used the word "right", a word he did not often use, to indicate that the statement he was giving was not genuine.

On redirect, defendant stated that after he hit his head, Kulekowskis gave him some paper towels and told him to wipe his face. Defendant further stated that the first time he received Miranda warnings was from the assistant State's Attorney.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge denied defendant's motion to suppress the statement.

The Trial
The State's Case

Carole Lange testified that in the late evening of April 15, 1972, she and her husband, Robert William Lange, attended a party at 5022 S. Blackstone Avenue. At approximately 11:30 p. m. she noticed her husband was absent and she was told that he went out with William...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • People v. Currie
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 May 1980
    ...a defendant should be given all reasonable latitude to provide evidence in support of his innocence. (People v. Durr (1978), 58 Ill.App.3d 525, 16 Ill.Dec. 98, 374 N.E.2d 873.) This latitude, however, does not encompass the admission of irrelevant and immaterial testimony into evidence. (Du......
  • Christopherson v. Hyster Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 17 March 1978
    ... ... In 1965 he was the field sales manager in Oakbrook, Illinois ...         Shaffner stated that he and the other Hyster people knew that these machines were being used in factories to move and stack materials. Under certain conditions, when a load was lifted above an ... ...
  • People v. Varellas
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 4 December 1985
    ...(7th Cir.1970), 435 F.2d 774; People v. Molsby (1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 647, 23 Ill.Dec. 309, 383 N.E.2d 1336; People v. Durr (1978), 58 Ill.App.3d 525, 16 Ill.Dec. 98, 374 N.E.2d 873. Defendant was, in fact, permitted to inquire whether the witness knew if Jerry Gross was involved in the "jui......
  • People v. Campos
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 6 May 1987
    ...to present relevant evidence (People v. Molsby (1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 647, 23 Ill.Dec. 309, 383 N.E.2d 1336; People v. Durr (1978), 58 Ill.App.3d 525, 16 Ill.Dec. 98, 374 N.E.2d 873) and to fully cross-examine to show bias, interest, or motive. (People v. Triplett (1985), 108 Ill.2d 463, 92 ......
  • 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