People v. Escobedo

Citation502 N.E.2d 1263,151 Ill.App.3d 69,104 Ill.Dec. 603
Decision Date31 December 1986
Docket NumberNo. 84-2620,84-2620
Parties, 104 Ill.Dec. 603 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Williams & Montgomery, Ltd. (Barry L. Kroll, of counsel), Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Richard M. Daley, State's Atty. (Joan S. Cherry, Kevin Sweeney, of counsel), Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.

Justice McMORROW delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial, defendant Daniel Escobedo was convicted of two counts of indecent liberties with a child (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, par. 11-4(a)(2), 11-4(a)(3)) and sentenced to concurrent terms of 12 years' imprisonment for each offense. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-1(a)(4).) Challenging the validity of his convictions, he raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the State established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) whether the prosecution's evidence prejudicially varied from the dates of the offenses set forth in the State's bill of particulars; (3) whether the defendant was denied a fair trial when a prospective juror who was peremptorily challenged by the defendant and excused by the trial court during voir dire served on the jury which found the defendant guilty of the charges; (4) whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony which defendant attempted to elicit in order to show that the complainant had told her mother the accusations against defendant were not true; (5) whether the defendant was denied a fair trial by the State's cross-examination of defendant and the complainant's mother regarding the complainant's future contact with the defendant; (6) whether defendant was denied a fair trial by the prosecution's presentation of the complainant's father and step-mother as witnesses; (7) whether certain statements made by the State during closing argument denied defendant a fair trial; (8) whether the State's presentation of "other crimes" evidence denied defendant a fair trial. For the reasons set forth more fully below, we affirm defendant's convictions.

BACKGROUND

On January 10, 1984, defendant was charged in a two-count information with indecent liberties with K.S., the 12 year-old daughter of defendant's girlfriend. The information charged that both crimes occurred between December 13, 1982 and January 3, 1983. The State subsequently furnished defense counsel with a bill of particulars, identifying the dates of the crimes as "[a]pproximately December 27th or 28th 1982 in the evening hours" and "[a]pproximately January 4th or 5th 1983 in the evening hours." The State specified in the bill of particulars that the first incident involved an act of "oral copulation" and the second an act of "lewd fondling." Both offenses were specified to have occurred at 3845 South Wolcott in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant raised the defense of alibi to the charges.

Defendant's trial began on September 24, 1984. Three witnesses were called by the prosecution: K.S., born February 15, 1970, the complaining witness; Debra, age 28, K.S.'s step-mother, who married K.S.'s father in April 1976; and Francis, age 34, the father of K.S.

The defense called thirteen witnesses. Several of them testified regarding the defendant's presence during the time period in question. Some of them corroborated defendant's employment during this period. Two of them testified regarding their relationship with K.S. during the time period in question and thereafter. The last two defense witnesses were the defendant himself and Linda, the mother of K.S., who married On direct examination, K.S. testified that in December 1982, when she was 12 years old, she lived in Chicago with her natural mother, Linda, and was in the 7th grade at a Catholic school. K.S.'s mother was employed as a salesperson for Sears, Roebuck and Company, and arrived home from work at about 6:30 p.m. one or two days a week, and at 9:30 p.m. at some other times. Defendant had been the boyfriend of K.S.'s mother for almost a year. On school days, K.S. would leave home at 8:15 a.m. and return home at 2:15 p.m. The defendant was there almost every day when she returned home from school, even when K.S.'s mother was not home. Sometimes K.S. and defendant would go to the show or for ice cream; once they went to a shooting range. K.S. would also sometimes go to her paternal grandmother's home after school, and usually went there on weekends.

[104 Ill.Dec. 607] the defendant after the filing of the charges which resulted in the convictions from which he now appeals. Defendant testified both that the alleged events never occurred and that he was elsewhere on the dates specified by the prosecution. Linda similarly testified both to facts inconsistent with her daughter's testimony and to facts consistent with the defendant's innocence.

K.S. stated that toward the last week of December 1982, she and defendant were alone in the living room of her mother's home and were sitting on the couch watching television. It was after dinner time; K.S. stated that she normally ate dinner about 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. K.S. testified that defendant "talked to [her] about two other people that--and the things that he did to them. * * * Then he talked to [her] about different things * * * about sex and stuff." K.S. gave detailed testimony to the effect that the defendant then perpetrated an act of oral copulation. She stated that thereafter "it was sort of late. [She] didn't talk to him after that. [She] just went to bed * * *." K.S. stated that her mother was not home at the time, and that the incident took "about five to ten minutes." Although K.S. initially could not recall if the incident occurred in the last week of December, she then testified that it may have happened the last week in December, and remembered that it happened on a week day, not on the weekend.

K.S. also testified that during the first week of January 1983, she and defendant were alone in her mother's house, in the living room, and were sitting on the couch watching television after dinner. Defendant "told [her] that what it was is all right, what has happened before that and that there would be nothing wrong * * * if [they] did it again." The witness testified to facts indicating that the defendant then committed an act of lewd fondling and that thereafter she "just left the room." She stated that she never did "these things with the [defendant] again." She did not know approximately when in the week the incident occurred, although she could recall that it was a school day.

K.S. stated that the day following the last encounter, she had a conversation with the defendant in the dining room of her mother's house and that no one else was there. K.S. told him "that [she] didn't want to do this anymore." She testified that she did not often speak to the defendant after the conversation.

In May 1983, K.S. left her mother's house to live with her father in Iowa. Her stepmother, Debra, was the first person whom she told, in July 1983, what had transpired between herself and defendant. She did not tell anyone from January 1983 to July 1983 "[b]ecause [she] was afraid." K.S. stated that she was afraid "[b]ecause [defendant] always had a gun with him * * * almost every day" she saw him. She saw him with the gun in the last week of December and the first week of January. She also testified that she was afraid to tell anyone because if she told her mother, her mother "wouldn't believe [K.S.] * * * she would believe [the defendant]."

On cross-examination, K.S. stated that she never told her father anything about the incidents with defendant and her father never asked her about what happened. Her father did tell her that he was going to K.S. testified that she did not tell her natural mother or any family members what had happened. She also never told a very close girlfriend she had in Chicago, nor did she tell any of the nuns or teachers at her school. She stated that her natural mother and defendant had told her, after the incidents which formed the basis of the instant prosecutions, that "whatever they said in this house or do in this house, it shouldn't go any further than the house." She also testified that when she told her step-mother, Debra, about the incidents in July 1983, she did not describe all of the details of the assault to Debra and that she did not tell Debra the same things that she told the jury.

[104 Ill.Dec. 608] file another petition later in 1983 to obtain K.S.'s custody. K.S. testified that she wanted to remain in Iowa with her father and step-mother.

K.S. stated that when she lived in Chicago, she baby sat for the children of her aunt (her father's sister). During the time period of December 1982 to January 1983, K.S. stated, she watched movies that were in her aunt's house on a video casette recorder that was there. The movies "showed what people did" when they made love to one another. She did not tell her mother, her father, or her step-mother that she had watched the movies. She denied that her testimony was based upon the contents of these movies.

Although K.S. initially stated that defendant lived with her mother and herself during December 1982 and January 1983, she then stated that he did not live with them during this period. K.S. also testified that after the incidents, she went to defendant's apartment by herself to feed and play with the defendant's dog, and that the defendant was there, although there may have also been other persons there as well. She admitted that she was with the defendant after the incidents and explained that she "was afraid that if [she] told somebody that he'd be mad at [her]." She testified that she did not hide from the defendant, and that she did not run away from him.

K.S. testified that on February 27, 1984, her mother's birthday, she telephoned her mother and had a conversation with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • People v. Harlan
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 23 d1 Julho d1 1990
    ... ... 7 According to amici, the State of Nebraska requires corroboration of the testimony of children in sexual abuse cases (State v. Jackson (1986) 222 Neb. 384, 383 N.W.2d 794), and the State of Illinois does so if the child's testimony is not clear and convincing (State v. Escobedo ... ...
  • Presley v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 15 d5 Abril d5 1988
    ... ... McCotter, 783 F.2d 487 (5th Cir.1986); Isom v. State, 284 Ark. 426, 682 S.W.2d 755, 757 (1985); People v. Moody, 676 P.2d 691, 696 (Colo. banc 1984); Gordon v ... Page 607 ... State, 469 So.2d 795, 797 (Fla.App.1985); Marsillett v. State, 495 ... denied (1966), 384 U.S. 1022, 86 S.Ct. 1947, 16 L.Ed.2d 1026.) ...         People v. Escobedo, 151 Ill.App.3d 69, 104 Ill.Dec. 603, 615, 502 N.E.2d 1263, 1275 (1986). The general rule is observed in this state. Herron v. State, 614 S.W.2d ... ...
  • People v. Allen
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 30 d1 Setembro d1 1991
    ... ... (See People v. Lemons (1991), 210 Ill.App.3d 33, 154 Ill.Dec. 931, 568 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Roy (1990), 201 Ill.App.3d 166, 146 Ill.Dec. 874, 558 N.E.2d 1208; People v. Cregar (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 807, 122 Ill.Dec. 613, 526 N.E.2d 1376; People v. Escobedo (1986), 151 Ill.App.3d 69, 104 Ill.Dec. 603, 502 N.E.2d 1263.) Upon review, we cannot say that the trial court's determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence, or that the alleged conflicts in the evidence rendered the State's case so improbable or unsatisfactory as to raise a ... ...
  • People v. Wheeler
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 19 d5 Julho d5 1991
    ... ... Resolution of such conflicts in testimony is the province of the trier of fact, which is in a superior position to determine the credibility of the witnesses. People v. Escobedo (1986), 151 Ill.App.3d 69, 104 Ill.Dec. 603, 502 N.E.2d 1263 ...         Defendant next contends that the conduct of the complainant in failing to report the sexual abuse until July of 1989 and in reinitiating contact with the defendant in January of 1989 after having allegedly been ... ...
  • 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