People v. Gaskins
| Decision Date | 29 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1361,78-1361 |
| Citation | 37 Ill.Dec. 368,402 N.E.2d 258,82 Ill.App.3d 37 |
| Parties | , 37 Ill.Dec. 368 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor GASKINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Bernard Carey, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago (Marcia B. Orr and Myra J. Brown, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant was indicted for murder, armed robbery, aggravated kidnapping and theft in the disappearance and death of Taweeyos Sirikul. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, pars. 9-1, 18-2, 10-2, (a)(3) and 16-1(a)(1).) The trial court allowed the State's nolle prosequi motion on the theft charge and the remaining charges were tried before a jury. At the close of the evidence, the court directed verdicts for defendant on the aggravated kidnapping charge and on the felony-murder count related to the aggravated kidnapping charge. The remaining murder counts and the armed robbery charge were submitted to the jury which found defendant guilty of both offenses. Judgment was entered on the verdicts and a pre-sentencing investigation was ordered. After a hearing, the court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 20 to 60 years for the armed robbery and 150 to 300 years for the murder.
On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the jury instructions for armed robbery and murder were improper; (2) the State failed to prove the victim's identity beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) the trial court improperly excluded evidence which was probative of the defense theory; (4) the State's rebuttal argument deprived defendant of a fair trial; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant. We affirm.
In the course of the trial, the State called 13 witnesses and offered and had received in evidence 47 exhibits. Defendant did not testify. His case consisted of 11 exhibits, 5 of which were admitted in evidence, and the testimony of 2 witnesses. A summary of the pertinent evidence adduced at trial follows.
In February 1977, Taweeyos Sirikul lived with his fiancee, Busaba Burakasikorn, at 5815 North Sheridan Road in Chicago. The two had come to the United States from Thailand to pursue graduate degrees at Roosevelt University. Ms. Burakasikorn knew Sirikul's family in Thailand, where Sirikul's father had what she believed to be a supervisory position with the police in Bangkok. Two of the brothers of Sirikul's father also worked for the government, one as a policeman, the other in the military. Ms. Burakasikorn was registered with the Department of Immigration and had a student visa. She had received her degree and was working at a nursing home near their apartment and Sirikul was working from 3 p. m. to midnight while finishing his studies.
Sirikul owned two cars at the time, a red 1976 Trans Am and an older Chevrolet. Sirikul put his Trans Am up for sale, placing an ad in the Chicago Sun-Times on February 21, 1977. The ad described the car, listed Sirikul's phone number, and indicated that interested persons should call before 2 p. m.
On February 25, 1977, Ms. Burakasikorn received a phone call around 1 p. m. from a man who was interested in buying the Trans Am. They arranged for him to come over the following day, a Saturday, when he and Sirikul took the car for a test drive. Ms. Burakasikorn identified the man as defendant. After test driving the car, defendant borrowed a dollar from Sirikul and left. On Tuesday, March 1, 1977, defendant again came by to see the car, this time borrowing three dollars from Sirikul and leaving his watch as security. Defendant was to repay the money on Thursday, March 3, 1977, but when he hadn't arrived by 2 p. m., Sirikul left. At 2:30 p. m. the phone rang, but no one was there when Ms. Burakasikorn answered it. A few minutes Ms. Burakasikorn worked from 9:30 a. m. to 12:30 p. m. on March 4, 1977, and Sirikul was not at home when she returned although they had planned to go shopping. She later called his employer and discovered that Sirikul had not arrived at work that day. Ms. Burakasikorn first called the police around 8 p. m. When her report that her boyfriend was missing was met with the response that he was fooling around with another woman, Ms. Burakasikorn called the police a second time, identifying herself as Sirikul's wife. She described the man who had come to the apartment and said that he gave his name as Brian, that he worked at a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant and that he carried a briefcase.
[37 Ill.Dec. 371] later defendant knocked at the door and asked if Sirikul was there. Ms. Burakasikorn told him to come back the following day. At about 3 p. m. defendant returned to the door and asked if Sirikul had left the watch for him. Early the following morning, March 4, 1977, Ms. Burakasikorn and Sirikul were at home together when the phone rang. Sirikul answered and told Ms. Burakasikorn it was the same man who had test driven the car. Sirikul left the apartment shortly before 9 a. m., wearing a leather jacket that matched one he had given Ms. Burakasikorn. It was the last time Ms. Burakasikorn saw him alive.
Defendant did not go to school on March 4, 1977. At about 5 p. m. that day, he drove to the home of Lindsay James, one of his high school friends, arriving in a 1975 or 1976 red Trans Am which James had never seen before. Another friend, Roosevelt Jones, had been visiting James, and defendant drove the two of them to Alden Park in the Trans Am. Defendant and James eventually drove to Evergreen Plaza shopping center, where defendant gave James Sirikul's paycheck, driver's license and Social Security card. Defendant told James to cash the check and they would split the money from it, asking James to endorse the check because he fit the description on Sirikul's driver's license better than defendant. James went into a currency exchange and, with defendant standing a bit behind him, signed Sirikul's name and cashed the check. James received approximately $120 and gave $50 or $60 to defendant. The two returned to James' house and defendant left in the Trans Am around 9 p. m.
Ulysses Terhune, another of defendant's friends, saw defendant around 8:30 or 9 p. m. on March 4, 1977, when defendant drove up to Terhune's home in a 1976 red Trans Am which Terhune had never seen before. Defendant and Terhune went to a nearby park where defendant let Terhune drive the Trans Am.
Terhune saw defendant in the same Trans Am around 10:15 a. m. the following day, March 5, 1977. Defendant's girlfriend was also in the car and they stayed at Terhune's until about noon. Defendant picked up Lindsay James at James' house around noon and they drove the Trans Am to Evergreen Plaza, where they bought some clothes. They paid for their purchases with a personal check that James signed in Sirikul's name, using Sirikul's driver's license as identification. Later in the day, defendant drove the Trans Am to Terhune's house and the two drove over to the home of Brian Rogers. Terhune, in the back seat en route to another friend's house, noticed what he thought to be blood splattered on the back window. Defendant and James drove to the automobile show the same day.
On March 6, 1977, Sirikul's family employed a private investigation firm, Beaton and Associates, to investigate Sirikul's disappearance. William Beaton, the owner, was the personal investigator of Dr. Robert Stein, the Chief Medical Examiner of Cook County. The investigation was conducted by Frank Klee who, prior to joining Beaton, was a counter-intelligence agent for the United States Army for four years and still served as a reserve criminal investigator for the United States Air Force. Klee interviewed Sirikul's two uncles, Ms. Burakasikorn, one of Sirikul's co-workers and persons in Sirikul's neighborhood. Klee's investigation of Sirikul's disappearance had nothing to do with his work for the Air Force or Army. James, Terhune and other friends of defendant had also seen defendant driving the Trans Am during the next two weeks. James rode home from school in the car nearly every day. Homer McCoy, who said he was defendant's best friend, saw defendant frequently during the school week of March 7 to 11, 1977. He knew defendant planned to get a Trans Am on March 4, 1977, and defendant had driven McCoy and his sister to and from school in the car during the week that followed. McCoy had asked defendant to open the trunk of the car so that he could see how big it was and put his books inside, but defendant never opened the trunk for him. During the week of March 7 to 11, McCoy had also noticed that defendant burned incense in the car and kept a can of air freshener in the back seat. Once, the incense was so strong that McCoy had to open the window of the Trans Am for fresh air.
On March 9, 1977, Terhune and Rogers were standing about two feet from the trunk of the car when Terhune noticed a smell "like some kind of dead matter." On March 12, 1977, defendant picked Rogers up at home after meeting Terhune at his home. Terhune drove his own car while defendant drove the Trans Am. They went into the alley behind Rogers' house where Terhune took the back tires off the Trans Am and replaced them with "mag" wheels. Terhune used his own jack because defendant would not let him open the trunk of the Trans Am to get the jack from there. While he was changing the tires, Terhune again noticed the smell emanating from the trunk. After changing the tires, Terhune drove the Trans Am around the block and heard a muffled thumping sound in the trunk whenever he quickly drove around a corner, came to a bump or stopped the car. Joseph Barbee, another friend and classmate of defendant, was also present that night and heard a flat, thudding sound coming from the trunk whenever they hit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polich v. Chicago School Finance Authority
... ... The jurisdiction has been sparingly exercised in causes involving issues relating to the revenue and of great public importance (see People v. Deep Rock Oil Corp. (1931), 343 Ill. 388, 175 N.E. 572; Thorpe v. Mahin (1969), 43 Ill.2d 36, 250 N.E.2d 633; Dee-El Garage, Inc. v. Korzen ... ...
-
People v. Lawson
... ... (See McCormick on Evidence § 40 at 81 (2d ed. 1972).) We do not, however, believe that this error resulted in "manifest prejudice" to defendant requiring reversal as in People v. Coles (1979), 74 Ill.2d 393, 24 Ill.Dec. 553, 385 N.E.2d 694. See also People v. Gaskins (1980), 82 Ill.App.3d 37, 37 Ill.Dec. 368, 402 N.E.2d 258 ... In Coles, the supreme court reversed defendant's conviction because the trial court had refused to allow defendant to cross-examine the chief prosecution witness and sole eyewitness to the robbery as to her bias. The ... ...
-
People v. Reed
... ... In the instant case, the jury did receive other instructions on the elements of armed robbery. As Hendricks remains the law in this state (see, e.g., People v. Gaskins (1980), 82 Ill.App.3d 37, 37 Ill.Dec. 368, 402 N.E.2d 258; People v. Johnson (1979), 74 Ill.App.3d 1037, 30 Ill.Dec. 385, 393 N.E.2d 40; People v. Franklin (1978), 64 Ill.App.3d 400, 20 Ill.Dec. 873, 380 N.E.2d 1082; People v. Duckins (1978), 59 Ill.App.3d 96, 16 Ill.Dec. 542, 375 N.E.2d 173), we ... ...
-
People v. Bunting
... ... Carey (1981), 94 Ill.App.3d 631, 50 Ill.Dec. 125, 418 N.E.2d 1119; People v. Anderson (1981), 93 Ill.App.3d 646, 48 Ill.Dec. 931, 417 N.E.2d 663 ... Assuming the issue is properly before this court, we find that the jury was instructed correctly. As noted in People v. Gaskins (1980), 82 Ill.App.3d 37, 37 Ill.Dec. 368, 402 N.E.2d 258, it is neither necessary nor possible for a single instruction to state all the law applicable to a case. Therefore, a jury is properly instructed if the instructions, considered as a whole, fully and [104 Ill.App.3d 296] fairly define the ... ...