People v. Edwards

Decision Date30 May 1991
Docket NumberNo. 67434,67434
Citation161 Ill.Dec. 788,144 Ill.2d 108,579 N.E.2d 336
Parties, 161 Ill.Dec. 788 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Daniel J. EDWARDS, Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Sept. 30, 1991.

Charles M. Schiedel, State Appellate Defender-Sup. Ct. Unit, Patricia G. Mysza, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for Daniel J. Edwards.

Roland W. Burris, Atty. Gen., Crim. Appeals Div., Chicago, Ill., State's Atty. Kankakee County, Kankakee, William P. Pistorius, Asst. State's Atty., Chicago, for people.

Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Daniel Edwards, and Nancy Rish were arrested on September 4, 1987, in connection with the kidnapping of Stephen Small. Late that evening, at approximately 10 p.m., defendant led police to Mr. Small's body, buried in an underground box in a densely wooded area near his home in Kankakee, Illinois. The Kankakee County grand jury subsequently returned a 13-count indictment on October 1, 1987. Counts I, II and III charged defendant with first degree murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, pars. 9-1(a)(1) through (a)(3)) and counts IV through XIII charged defendant with aggravated kidnapping for knowingly and secretly confining Mr. Small in an underground box and thereby killing him (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, pars. 10-2(a)(1), (a)(3) through (a)(5)). On defendant's motion, defendant's and Rish's trials were severed. The jury returned general verdicts of guilty on both offenses. Defendant was sentenced to death by the circuit court of Kankakee County after the jury found that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude imposition of the death penalty. Execution was stayed (134 Ill.2d R. 609(a)) pending appeal to this court (Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, § 4(b); Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 9-1(i); 134 Ill.2d Rules 603, 605).

The following is an abbreviated summary of the facts leading to defendant's arrest. Mr. Small and his family lived in Kankakee, Illinois. On September 2, 1987, at approximately 12:30 a.m. Mr. Small received a telephone call at his home from an individual who identified himself as a member of the Kankakee police force. The caller told Mr. Small that his business office had been burglarized and that he was needed at the office immediately. Mr. Small left his home.

At approximately 3:30 a.m., Nancy Small, Mr. Small's wife, received a telephone call at the Small home from an unidentified male who told her that her husband had been kidnapped. Mrs. Small then heard her husband's voice telling her that he had been handcuffed inside a box buried under a few feet of sand in the ground. Mr. Small told his wife to contact the family attorney and investment manager and obtain $1 million for ransom money the kidnapper was demanding. Mrs. Small contacted family members and the Kankakee police and FBI agents were notified of the kidnapping.

That evening, at 5:03 p.m., Mrs. Small received a second telephone call from an unidentified male. Mrs. Small heard her husband giving her directions for the delivery of the ransom money. According to Mr. Small, she would receive a map in the mail with which to find him if everything "check[ed] out." From a recording device they had installed on the telephone in the Small home (a trap), the FBI traced the call to a telephone booth at a service station in Aroma Park, Kankakee.

At 5:40 p.m., Jean Alice Small, Mr. Small's aunt, telephoned the Small home to relay a telephone conversation she had had minutes earlier. Jean Small repeated the conversation to Mrs. Small's brother-in-law, who was at the Small home with Mrs. Small at the time. The telephone call was recorded by the trap on the telephone.

According to Jean Small, an unidentified male told her that he knew the Small telephone was tapped. The caller told Jean Small that he made his living from wealthy people who lived in small towns. The caller told Jean Small that Mr. Small was buried in the ground and if the caller saw police officers there would be a "shoot out" or a "blood bath," he would leave town and Mrs. Small would never know where her husband was buried. The caller threatened to "kill [Jean Small's] husband too" in the event she "f * * * up."

After the 5:03 p.m. telephone call from Aroma Park, the FBI arranged for surveillance of the area. At approximately 11:28 p.m., Mrs. Small received another ransom call from an unidentified male. This call was also traced to a telephone booth in Aroma Park, although not the one from which the 5:03 p.m. call had originated. FBI Agent Mike Evans and his partner arrived at the telephone booth shortly after the 11:28 p.m. telephone call was placed. Evans saw a white male at the telephone. He also saw an automobile in the area of the booth and recorded the license number. Evans saw a white female with shoulder length blonde hair in the driver's seat of the automobile. After the call was made, the agents saw the automobile make a U-turn and drive away. The agents attempted to follow the automobile but lost it almost immediately.

A fourth ransom call was made to the Small home at 11:46 p.m., but the call was not recorded. This call originated from a public telephone booth in Kankakee which was not under police surveillance. The male caller told Mrs. Small, "You called the police," and repeatedly claimed, "You f * * * up." The caller refused her offer to leave the ransom money. At 11:50 p.m., an Illinois State police officer saw the same automobile spotted by Agent Evans with its trunk partially open, driving away from Kankakee towards Aroma Park.

The Kankakee police department ran a check on the license number Agent Evans had recorded. The search revealed that the automobile was registered to Rish and that her address was 920 South Greenwood, Kankakee. This information was disseminated to the police officers and FBI agents investigating the kidnapping. A police officer familiar with Rish informed the other officials that she was defendant's girlfriend and that the couple lived together at 756 Stratford Drive East, Kankakee.

Police officers began surveillance of the Stratford residence late in the evening on September 2. At 1:20 a.m. on September 3, Rish's automobile, with its trunk partially open, arrived at the residence. Defendant and Rish exited the car and went inside. A white van was parked in front of the residence. A neighbor of the Smalls had told police earlier that day that she had seen a white van parked in the street in front of the Small home at approximately 3 a.m. on September 2.

On September 3, Master Sergeant William Willis of the Illinois State police appeared before a circuit court judge and requested a search warrant for the residence and attached garage located at 756 Stratford Drive East. As part of this request, Willis prepared a complaint for the search warrant containing an affidavit stating the facts which led Willis to believe that items taken in the course of the kidnapping were located at the residence. The judge signed the complaint and the warrant and notarized the affidavit.

The search warrant was executed the following day, September 4, at approximately 10:35 a.m. Police entered the house and immediately frisked and handcuffed defendant. Defendant was asked if anyone else was in the house and he indicated Rish was upstairs getting dressed. The police then told defendant they were authorized to execute a search of the house and showed defendant the warrant. At that point defendant was taken out of the house and escorted to a police car. Police drove defendant to the Kankakee County Detention Center and placed him in a holding cell. Rish was similarly escorted to the police department. After defendant and Rish had been removed from the house, Detective Robert Anderson and members of the Kankakee police department executed the search warrant. Defendant was subsequently indicted for the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Small.

Defendant raises numerous issues in his appeal regarding his conviction and sentence.

Prior to the severance of their cases, defendant and Rish filed pretrial motions to quash their arrests. A hearing was conducted, at the conclusion of which the trial court denied the motions to quash. Defendant now argues that although the police lawfully entered his home to execute the search warrant, they lacked probable cause to arrest him.

For fourth amendment purposes, a warrant to search for contraband, founded on probable cause, implicitly carries with it the authority to detain occupants of the premises while the search is being conducted. (Michigan v. Summers (1981), 452 U.S. 692, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340.) If, in the course of the search, evidence establishing probable cause to arrest one or more of the occupants of the house is found, an arrest and a search incident thereto are constitutionally permissible. Summers, 452 U.S. at 705, 101 S.Ct. at 2596, 69 L.Ed.2d at 351.

Arrests made independently of a search for contraband or evidence require a separate analysis. Warrantless felony arrests made in a public setting have been held to be constitutionally permissible as long as there is probable cause to support the arrest. (United States v. Watson (1976), 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598.) In Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639, the Court considered the circumstances under which police officers may enter a private residence to make a routine felony arrest without first obtaining a warrant. There, the Court held that the fourth amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. (Payton, 445 U.S. at 576, 100 S.Ct. at 1374-75, 63 L.Ed.2d at 644.) The Court rejected the suggestion that only a search warrant would adequately protect the privacy rights at stake and concluded that either a search or an arrest warrant first be obtained before entry...

To continue reading

Request your trial
92 cases
  • State v. Ross
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 26, 1994
    ... ... money under false pretenses by defendant in Illinois, offenses by their nature peculiarly injurious to the state of Michigan); see also People v. Tyler, 7 Mich. 161, 221 (1859) ('every sovereignty has the right, subject to certain restrictions, to protect itself from, and to punish as ... See, e.g., People v. Edwards, 144 Ill.2d 108, 174-75, 161 Ill.Dec. 788, 579 N.E.2d 336 (1991) (citing Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, c. 38, p 9-1[e], cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct ... ...
  • Faulkner v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 29, 2004
    ... ...         As part of their investigation, police took the names and addresses of people who were at the scene. One was Faulkner, who had gone home to change his clothes and hide his gun, then returned to the First Stop ... the police are where they have a right to be and may arrest a resident, provided they have probable cause to do so"); Illinois v. Edwards, 144 Ill.2d 108, 161 Ill.Dec. 788, 579 N.E.2d 336, 343 (1991) (when police enter home to execute search warrant, they may arrest resident if they ... ...
  • Whittlesey v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1994
    ...of unreliable evidence), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1367, 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); cf. People v. Edwards, 144 Ill.2d 108, 161 Ill.Dec. 788, 816, 579 N.E.2d 336, 364 (1991) (mitigating evidence is inadmissible if unreliable), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 942, 112 S.Ct. 2278, 119 L.Ed.2d......
  • State v. Addison
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • November 6, 2013
    ...are not reliable in light of the defendant's motive to fabricate testimony favorable to his innocence. People v. Edwards, 144 Ill.2d 108, 161 Ill.Dec. 788, 579 N.E.2d 336, 357–58 (1991) (quotation and citations omitted); see State v. Johnson, 145 N.H. 647, 649, 765 A.2d 165 (2000) (holding ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Procedures for Objections & Motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...stipulation would be totally harmless to you, offer to make it prior to trial to preempt your opponent’s offer. CASES People v. Edwards , 144 Ill 2d 108, 579 NE2d 336 (1991). When evidence is competent only for one purpose, the opposing party is entitled to instructions limiting the evidenc......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...Ill App 3d 615, 739 NE2d 914 (2000), §21:80 People v. Edmundson , 247 Ill App 3d 738, 617 NE2d 446 (1993), §11:160 People v. Edwards , 144 Ill 2d 108, 579 NE2d 336 (1991), §1:370 People v. Edwards , 224 Ill App 3d 1017, 586 NE2d 1326 (1992), §8:110 People v. Edwards , 309 Ill App 3d 447, 72......

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