People v. Gaines

• Decision Date: 30 September 1991
• Docket Number: No. 1-87-1125,1-87-1125
• Citation: 220 Ill.App.3d 310,581 N.E.2d 214,163 Ill.Dec. 263
• Parties: , 163 Ill.Dec. 263 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert GAINES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 214

581 N.E.2d 214

220 Ill.App.3d 310, 163 Ill.Dec. 263

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert GAINES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-87-1125.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, First Division.

Sept. 30, 1991.

Office of the State Appellate Defender (Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender, Gordon H. Berry, Asst. Appellant Defender, of counsel), Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

State's Atty., County of Cook, Cecil A. Partee, State's Atty. (Renee Goldfarb and Tyra H. Taylor, of counsel), Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.

Presiding Justice MANNING delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant Robert Gaines was charged by indictment with aggravated criminal sexual assault, armed violence, criminal sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping and kidnapping. Prior to defendant's trial he filed a petition to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The court denied that petition.

Defendant's first trial resulted in a "hung jury." He was subsequently tried by a second jury and convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated kidnapping. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, pars. 10-2(a), 12-14(a)(1), (2).) Defendant was sentenced to serve 15 years in prison for one count of aggravated criminal sexual assault and a concurrent eight years for aggravated kidnapping. Defendant was not sentenced for the second aggravated criminal sexual assault conviction.

On appeal defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his petition to quash arrest and suppress evidence; and (2) that under the principle of "one act-one crime," the court improperly sentenced him for both aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated kidnapping.

At the evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress statements, defendant's mother Rebecca Gaines testified that about 9 p.m. on September 21, 1985, a Chicago police officer came to her door and asked whether anyone named "Grimes" lived at that address. She replied "no" then the officer asked whether the owner of the car parked in the yard lived at that address. She responded "yes" and sent her grandson to get the defendant. Before defendant reached the open-front door, Ms. Gaines advised defendant that the officer wanted to speak with him. Ms. Gaines stated that at the door defendant asked the officer "what is up" and told the officer that he owned the Toyota parked in the yard. The officer then told defendant to "step outside," which he did. Ms. Gaines testified that the officer then immediately suggested that he and defendant step inside in order to avoid "making a scene."

Ms. Gaines testified that defendant and the officer walked inside the house and left through the back door. When defendant stepped outside there were two policemen there. Ms. Gaines stated that she followed the policemen and defendant outside and into the yard where the officer searched the interior and trunk of the car. The officer lifted defendant's briefcase and a bottle of liquid detergent from the trunk. Ms. Gaines described her home and stated that a four-foot wire fence enclosed the yard. She did not remember whether the gate to the fence was opened or closed before the police arrived.

Defendant's sister, Karen Gaines, testified that on the evening of the incident she was present at the house when defendant was arrested. She stated that after hearing a voice calling for "Grimes" she walked downstairs where a police officer and Ms. Gaines were talking in the kitchen. Karen went outside the house where she saw several police officers searching defendant's car. Karen stated that defendant was handcuffed after the officers searched the trunk.

Defendant testified at the hearing on the motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence that about 4 p.m. on September 21, 1985, he was in the basement of his home when his mother called him to come upstairs because the police wanted to see him. Defendant stated that he walked to the front door, asked "what is happening," and the officer told him to "step outside." He went outside and the officer asked him whether he owned the Toyota parked in the yard and whether his name was "Grimes." He told the officer that he owned the car, but that his name was not "Grimes." He stated that the officer then said "Let's step back into the house. Let's not make a scene." Defendant testified that he and the officers walked out the back door of the house and that one officer asked for the keys to his car.

Officer Curd testified that on the day of the incident, Sergeant Giles informed him that the victim had been sexually assaulted and that the offender drove a beige Toyota with license plate number FTC 552. Giles also gave Curd a description of the offender.

Officer Curd testified further that he went to the address registered to the license plate number, knocked on the door and observed the vehicle described by Giles parked in the yard. Ms. Gaines answered the door and Curd asked her if she owned the car parked in the yard. Curd testified that Ms. Gaines stated that the car belonged to her son. Curd asked to speak with defendant and explained to Ms. Gaines that he was investigating a sexual assault. Ms. Gaines sent a child to get defendant, then asked Curd to step inside the house. Curd and Giles entered the house and Curd then asked defendant if his car was parked outside and whether anyone else drove it. Defendant answered "yes" and "no" respectively, then they walked into the backyard where the car was parked. Curd further testified that once in the backyard, Giles asked defendant if they could search the car and defendant replied it was fine with him. After searching the trunk of the car Curd discovered a bottle of Solo laundry detergent, and defendant was then arrested. Curd stated that he did not have a search or arrest warrant and that defendant willingly gave him the keys to the car. Curd drove defendant's car to the police station after defendant was arrested.

Detective Egan testified that about 9:45 p.m. on September 21, 1985, he advised defendant of his Miranda rights in the presence of Officers Vimarco and Peak, and that defendant stated that he understood his rights. Egan interviewed both defendant and the victim. He testified that the victim identified defendant in the lineup, and that following the lineup he obtained defendant's written consent to search his car, which had been brought to the station. Egan stated that he removed the bottle of Solo detergent from the car.

Sergeant Giles testified at the pre-trial hearing that about 45 minutes prior to arriving at defendant's home, he received a flash message that a sexual assault had occurred. The offender was described as a black male, age 26, 5'6"' and 140 pounds. The message indicated that the offender used a knife and drove a beige Toyota, license plate number FTC 552. He stated that he and another tactical unit responded to the message. The officers drove to defendant's home, displayed their badges to Ms. Gaines, then asked her who owned the Toyota parked in the backyard. Giles stated that Ms. Gaines allowed him and Curd into the house, then called for defendant. Giles testified that when defendant appeared, they asked him if he owned the Toyota in the backyard, and defendant replied "yes." He testified that defendant then voluntarily gave the officers the keys to his car, and gave permission for a search. Giles testified further that defendant was not arrested in the house, nor was he handcuffed. He stated that he searched the car and found a bottle of Solo liquid detergent in the trunk then arrested and handcuffed defendant. Defendant was taken to the police station and advised of his Miranda rights.

At the conclusion of the evidence on the motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, the court stated that the burden of proving the allegations in the petition was on the defendant. The court found that there was no suggestive identification, even though defendant never raised this issue orally or in his petition, and that defendant was properly identified as the offender following a lawful arrest. The court, however, found that any statements which defendant made in the house or evidence seized from the house was inadmissible. The court further found that the Solo detergent seized from defendant's car was admissible because exigent circumstances were present and the officers were in "hot pursuit" of a suspected rapist. The court denied the petition in part and granted it in part.

Defendant's first trial resulted in a "hung jury." At the second trial the victim J.B. testified that on September 21, 1985, she washed her clothes at a laundromat in the Roseland Plaza. She then packed her clothes along with the Solo detergent at about 7:15 p.m. and walked to a bus stop. Defendant drove by in a four-door beige Toyota and told her his name was "James" and asked her how far she was going. The victim told defendant her name and that she was going to Altgeld Gardens. Defendant offered her a ride and told her that he was also headed to Altgeld Gardens, but initially she declined the offer. However, because it was raining she eventually accepted the ride with defendant. Defendant placed the victim's clothes and the Solo detergent in the trunk of his car and began driving in a direction not leading to her home. He explained to the victim that he planned to take the expressway to her home instead of the street. Defendant drove to Doty Road, and the victim again asked him where he was going. Defendant stopped the car and instructed the victim to "suck his dick." The victim testified that she refused and defendant pulled out a knife and placed it at her throat. He then drove to a McDonald's parking lot and parked. He unzipped his pants, took out his penis and forced the victim to perform fellatio. Thereafter, defendant placed the knife at the victim's side, forced her to have sexual intercourse and ejaculated in her vagina.

Defendant...