People v. English

• Decision Date: 26 September 1975
• Docket Number: 74--166,Nos. 74--165,s. 74--165
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Leroy ENGLISH and William Howard Hayes, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 199

336 N.E.2d 199

32 Ill.App.3d 691

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Leroy ENGLISH and William Howard Hayes, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 74--165, 74--166.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Sept. 26, 1975.

Paul Bradley, First Deputy, State Appellate Defender, Chicago, James R. Streicker Asst. Appellate Defender, Chicago, for William Hayes.

Lynn Sara Frackman, Asst. Appellate Defender, Chicago, for James English.

Nicholas G. Byron, State's Atty., Edwardsville (Bruce D. Irish, Principal Atty., Byra Brown, Staff Atty., Mount Vernon, of counsel), Illinois State's Attys. Ass'n, Statewide Appellate Assistance Service, for plaintiff-appellee.

KARNS, Justice.

Defendants-appellants, William Howard Hayes and James Leroy English, were convicted or armed robbery after a jury trial in Madison County. Hayes was sentenced to from six to twelve years imprisonment and English from twelve to twenty years. On appeal, each defendant contends that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when evidence of crimes other than the subject of the instant prosecution was brought before the jury. English further contends that the sentence of from twelve to twenty years in excessive.

The incident arose when the two defendants and a third defendant, Roxanne Howard English, arrived at the home of Charles and Dani Reisinger, to collect money owed to Roxanne by Dani. James and Roxanne English had gone to the Reisinger home the previous night but had been sent away by Charles, who was armed with a shotgun. The three defendant's arrived the next morning and pushed their way into the apartment after Dani had denied them entrance. Hayes was armed with a sawed-off shotgun and James English with a pistol. Mr. and Mrs. Reisinger testified that both Hayes and James English threatened them and that English took money from Charles Reisinger. When Dani attempted to prevent this, she was struck on the head with the pistol by English. As soon as the three left, the Reisingers called the police.

Roxanne English was the only witness for the defense. She denied that threats were made and stated that no violence occurred until after Charles Reisinger had given her, and not her husband, James, the money voluntarily. At that point, Dani Reisinger became hysterical and attempted to strike James and Roxanne. To protect Roxanne, James then struck Dani. According to Roxanne, Hayes did not display the shotgun until after this violence had occurred, although she admitted that English held his pistol in plain view throughout the incident. At the time of the robbery neither Charles or Dani Reisinger was armed.

Both Reisingers identified Hayes and Roxanne English and the defense stipulated to the identification of James English who was voluntarily absent from the trial. The defense also stipulated that the three defendants were arrested a short distance from the scene and that a subsequent search of Roxanne revealed two shotgun shells taken from the Reisinger home and $107 in cash. A search of the car disclosed the pistol and shotgun.

We believe there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants took money from the person or presence of Charles Reisinger by the use of force or the threat of the imminent use of force and while armed with dangerous weapons and thus committed armed robbery. Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 18--2. Although there were several contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of the witnessesThere was sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury, to convict. It is the duty of the trier of fact to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to determine the weight their testimony is to be afforded. This court will not disturb the jury's findings unless the verdict is so palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence or the evidence so unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt of guilt. People v. Clark, 52 Ill.2d 374, 288 N.E.2d 363 (1972); People v. Crews, 38 Ill.2d 331, 231 N.E.2d 451 (1967). Although not strenuously argued by the defendants it is suggested that the existence of the debt owed to the defendants by the victims should be considered in our decision. Even assuming that the debt alluded to was valid, it is the law and policy of this State that a creditor may not employ violence, threats, or weapons to collect the debt but should pursue his remedies in the normal channels of peaceful and legal redress. People v. Uselding, 107 Ill.App.2d 305, 247 N.E.2d 35 (1969); People v. Williams, 118 Ill.App.2d 341, 255 N.E.2d 44 (1969).

Defendant Hayes contends that his accountability for the acts of James English was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument apparently relies solely on the verity of the testimony of Roxanne English. As we have noted, however, the jury could reasonably believe the testimony of the Reisingers that Hayes brandished the shotgun and threatened Charles Reisinger with immediate violence. Thus the only act in which he did not take part was the physical removal of the money from Reisinger, which was accomplished solely by either James or Roxanne English. In addition, Hayes departed with the other defendants and in no way attempted to dissuade them from their course of conduct. The jury had ample evidence to convict defendant as a principal without employing principles of accountability. But in the instant case, the jury was properly instructed both on the elements of the offense and on the principles of accountability and properly could have returned the verdict complained of.

Defendants...