People v. Favors

• Decision Date: 29 September 1993
• Docket Number: No. 1-90-1282,1-90-1282
• Citation: 254 Ill.App.3d 876,626 N.E.2d 1265
• Parties: , 193 Ill.Dec. 714 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter FAVORS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1265

626 N.E.2d 1265

254 Ill.App.3d 876, 193 Ill.Dec. 714

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Peter FAVORS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-90-1282.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Third Division.

Sept. 29, 1993.

Jack O'Malley, State's Attorney, Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Linda Woloshin, Cristina A. Fichera, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Rita A. Fry, Public Defender, Chicago (Michael Davidson, Alison Edwards, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Justice RIZZIdelivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial, defendant, Peter Favors, was found guilty on two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 12-14), and one count of home invasion (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 12-11).The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 28 years imprisonment for both counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and 28 years imprisonment for home invasion.Defendant now appeals.We affirm.

The issues before this court for review are (1) whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress all identification testimony; (2) whether the prosecutor made inflammatory remarks during the State's opening statement; (3) whether the trial court erred when it permitted the prosecutor to elicit certain testimony during the State's direct, re-direct and cross-examinations of certain witnesses and when it allowed the prosecutor to reiterate portions of said testimony during the State's closing argument; (4) whether the trial court erred when it permitted the prosecutor to declare during the State's closing argument that defendant determined who was going to testify for the State; (5) whether the prosecutor made statements during the State's closing argument that were not supported by the evidence; (6) whether the prosecutor made inflammatory prejudicial remarks to the jury during the State's closing argument; (7) whether the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to express his own opinion regarding James' testimony during the State's closing argument; and (8) whether the cumulative effect of the alleged errors at trial abridged defendant's right to a fair trial.

The following fact scenario occurred.K.J. got into bed around 11:30 p.m. on the night of June 14, 1988.K.J. testified that the kitchen light, the hallway light and her bedroom light were all on at the time she fell asleep.K.J. also left the windows open with the screens down because it was a hot night.

When K.J. awakened during the early morning of June 15, 1988, she saw defendant crouched down near her bedroom lamp.When defendant looked up at her she jumped off of her bed whereupon defendant grabbed her, hit her in the face and attempted to pull her hair down over her eyes in order to conceal his identity.K.J. testified that despite defendant's attempt to prevent her from seeing him, she observed that he was wearing blue jeans, a checkered flannel shirt and a shiny shower cap.After pulling K.J.'s hair, defendant poked her in her neck and torso with a silver object.K.J. screamed but defendant told her to "stop that" and to "shut up."

K.J. testified that although she struggled with defendant, he eventually forced her to lie down on her bed, he tied her arms behind her neck with a cord and he placed a pillow and a blanket over her head.K.J. testified that defendant then placed his mouth on her vagina and that he subsequently inserted his penis into her vagina.K.J. further testified that after defendant lifted his body off of hers, she heard him get dressed and sort through some items in a bag.K.J. stated that shortly thereafter, she heard and felt defendant cut off a lock of her hair with a pair of scissors.Defendant then left the apartment.

After defendant departed, the victim waited for a short period of time before going to her neighbor Estelle Corpus' apartment, where Corpus cut the cord binding her hands.The victim then telephoned her pastor while another neighbor, Mrs. Burgess, called the police.

When the police arrived, K.J. was interviewed by Broadview Police Sergeant Richard Miller.The victim told Sergeant Miller that her assailant was a black male with a dark complexion; that was between 6 feet and 6 feet 2 inches tall; that he weighed approximately 240 pounds; that he had a muscular physique; and that he was wearing blue jeans, a checkered flannel shirt and a shower cap during the assault.After K.J. talked to Sergeant Miller, she spoke to her pastor for a brief period of time.The victim was then taken to Loyola University Hospital where she was treated.

Broadview Detective Steve Ryndak interviewed the victim at the hospital after she was treated.K.J. told the detective that she believed her assailant was named "Peter"(defendant) and that he lived with a neighbor named Jonathan James.In addition, K.J. told Detective Ryndak that she had seen defendant twice before: once while she was walking towards her back door after attending a church service; and again while she was getting into her car which was parked in the parking lot of her apartment complex.K.J. later testified that the first time she saw defendant, he asked her if she lived alone and that the second time she saw defendanthe said "hi."K.J. told Detective Ryndak that she was about 10 feet away from defendant on both occasions.

After the victim named defendant as her assailant, Detective Ryndak telephoned James whereupon James told him that defendant's last name was Favors and that defendant was living with him.Detective Ryndak subsequently obtained a photograph of defendant from James.The photograph was taken in December of 1987 and did not accurately depict defendant's appearance at the time of the assault which occurred in June of 1988.

Later, during that same afternoon, Detective Ryndak showed K.J. six photographs including the picture of defendant which he had obtained from James.The men in the other five photographs also matched K.J.'s description of the physical attributes of her assailant.K.J. was unable to identify her assailant from the photographs.

On June 16, 1988, Detective Ryndak received a telephone call from James.During their conversation, James asked Detective Ryndak to come to his apartment.When Detective Ryndak arrived at James' apartment, James showed him a pair of scissors that were lying underneath a couch.James told Detective Ryndak that the scissors did not belong to him.The scissors were recovered by the police as evidence.Detective Ryndak later showed the scissors to K.J. who identified them as hers.At trial, K.J. identified a pair of scissors as the ones that were missing from her apartment after the assault.

On June 18, 1988, Detective Ryndak took a new photograph of defendant at James' apartment.He later assembled a second array of five photographs which included the most recent photograph of defendant.The individuals in each of the pictures fit the description of K.J's assailant.Defendant was the only person whose picture was displayed in both the first and second photographic arrays.When the second photographic array was shown to K.J., she identified defendant immediately and said, "this is the man that raped me."Defendant was arrested on June 22, 1988.

On June 23, 1988, defendant was placed in a lineup.All of the participants in the lineup wore shower caps and said the words "stop that" and "shut up."Upon viewing the lineup, K.J. identified defendant as her assailant.

Prior to the trial defendant filed a motion to suppress all identification testimony.This motion was denied by the trial court.

During the State's opening statement, the prosecutor made remarks describing the victim's ordeal, comments regarding the victim's conversation with her pastor after the assault and he urged the jury to render verdicts of guilty on each charge.The propriety of these statements is contested on appeal.

During the trial, Corpus testified that on the morning K.J. was assaulted, she observed a man walk in the direction of James' apartment while she was looking through her living room window.Corpus further testified that she looked out of her window again approximately 20 minutes later, whereupon she observed the man, who was then wearing a shower cap on his head, walk from the area where James lived, toward 14th Street.Corpus testified that after observing the man for the second time, she heard a scream emanating from the direction of 14th Street.Corpus told the court that K.J. knocked on her door shortly thereafter.

At trial, the prosecutor elicited testimony from the victim regarding the details of the assault, her contact with her pastor immediately after the assault and her initial reluctance to disclose defendant's identity to the police prior to speaking to her pastor.The prosecutor later made references to K.J.'s testimony concerning her interactions with her pastor during the State's closing argument.The propriety of the above testimony and the reiteration of said testimony during closing arguments is contested by defendant on appeal.

The prosecutor also elicited testimony from the victim regarding a conversation between her and James after the assault.The victim testified that James stated that he believed that defendant assaulted her and that defendant consumed cocaine and watched pornographic movies.Defendant moved for a mistrial based upon the victim's testimony concerning her conversation with James, however his motion was denied.Instead the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony.Later, during the State's direct examination of James, James denied having made such a statement to K.J.

During the State's closing argument, the prosecutor made several statements which defendant now contends were improper: (1)the prosecutor speculated about the victim's thoughts during the assault; (2)the prosecutor made remarks expressing his own opinion with respect to the...