People v. Gleckler

Citation411 N.E.2d 849,82 Ill.2d 145,44 Ill.Dec. 483
Decision Date17 October 1980
Docket NumberNo. 51537,51537
Parties, 44 Ill.Dec. 483 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Jerry Arthur GLECKLER, Appellant.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Richard J. Wilson and Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy State Appellate Defenders, and Charles M. Schiedel and Verlin Meinz, Asst. State Appellate Defenders, Ottawa, for appellant.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago (Donald B. MacKay, Melbourne A. Noel, Jr., Carolyn B. Notkoff and Jonathan Strauss, Asst. Attys. Gen., Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

CLARK, Justice:

A jury in Champaign County found defendant, Jerry Arthur Gleckler, guilty of the shotgun murders of two teenagers, Douglas Scott Simmons and Mark Harris. Two days later, on May 26, 1978, this same jury decided that no mitigating factors existed which were sufficient to preclude a sentence of death. Direct appeal was taken to this court. See 73 Ill.2d R. 603.

Evidence introduced at trial showed that the bodies of Simmons and Harris were found at 7:30 a. m. on September 26, 1977, in a ditch beside a county road near Mahomet. Both had shotgun wounds in the back and had been killed by close-range shotgun blasts to the back of the head. Defendant Gleckler was arrested on September 28. Under questioning by police, he agreed to waive his Miranda rights and make a recorded statement.

Gleckler was indicted for murder, along with Theodore Parsons and Robert Kirkpatrick, on October 4, 1977. The indictments also charged that Simmons and Harris were killed by defendants during the course of an armed robbery. On December 12, 1977, the State's motion to sever the cases against the three defendants was granted.

The recorded statement and Gleckler's trial testimony formed the bulk of the evidence against him. In his testimony, Gleckler, 35, said he had been a heavy drinker since his teenage years. His background included stints in the National Guard (1964-68) and in the United States Army (1968-74). In 1977, Gleckler joined the Harmony House in Danville for help with his drinking problem. There he met and befriended Robert Kirkpatrick. In August, Gleckler met Theodore Parsons, primarily a friend of Kirkpatrick. Gleckler and Kirkpatrick got drunk on August 30, and Gleckler did not again return to Harmony House. He moved into a trailer of a friend of Kirkpatrick.

On September 23, 1977, Gleckler, Kirkpatrick and Parsons, during a drive back from the home of Kirkpatrick's parents, discussed farmers in the area who owned guns. Gleckler mentioned a residence containing several guns. On September 24, Parsons visited Gleckler and persuaded him to burglarize that residence. They stole two shotguns (one 12-gauge and one 20-gauge), ammunition, and several other guns thought by Gleckler to be worth $3,000. Gleckler testified that he wanted to sell these guns. (Apparently one of the guns was eventually sold after the crime at issue here took place.)

Gleckler and Parsons went back to the trailer. Parsons left and then returned with Kirkpatrick. Gleckler briefly assisted Parsons in sawing off the barrel of a shotgun and then went to sleep. Parsons and Kirkpatrick left the trailer at 6 or 7 p. m.

Other testimony showed that Kirkpatrick and Parsons that evening robbed and shot a gas station attendant, who was able to describe his assailant (Parsons) and his accomplice (Kirkpatrick) and their vehicle (Parsons' car). The next day Gleckler was persuaded by Kirkpatrick and Parsons to take a ride with them, supposedly in order to sell the 12-gauge shotgun. Instead they drove around. Gleckler, having consumed 8 to 10 beers, slept in the car for most of the time. That evening they ate dinner in a Mahomet restaurant. Another patron overheard a portion of their conversation in which one of the three cautioned the group to avoid doing anything by which someone could recognize them.

After eating they drove to a liquor store. Gleckler went inside and bought beer and whiskey. When Gleckler returned to the car, Parsons asked several questions about the store and revealed an intention to rob it. When Gleckler demurred, Parsons said he was "chicken § " like Kirkpatrick and then disclosed the robbery and shooting of the prior evening.

It is obvious that some sort of criminal enterprise was agreed upon and that obtaining another car, to avoid identification of Parsons', was a crucial element of their plan.

To that end they cruised an apartment complex but, upon seeing a police car, they returned to the liquor store parking lot. Parsons' stated intention was to follow an exiting store patron and take his or her car. Gleckler, in his testimony and in his arrest statement, said generally that he argued against robbing the liquor store and against following a store patron. At this time he went into the tavern to use the bathroom and have a drink. He told Kirkpatrick to "talk" to Parsons. After Gleckler returned to the car, another car, a green Plymouth with a white top, later identified as the victims' car, pulled into the lot and one occupant got out and went into the store. This person came out and reentered the Plymouth. When it left, Parsons, with Kirkpatrick in the front seat and Gleckler in the back seat, drove after it. Parsons followed the car and twice flashed his lights at it to get it to stop.

In his arrest statement, Gleckler was asked specifically if Parsons said anything other than that he was going to stop and take their car. Gleckler answered, "No, he didn't." The Plymouth ultimately pulled over or was forced off the road. Parsons pulled over and parked in front of them, got out of the car, and told the occupants of the Plymouth to get out of their car without looking. No further words were spoken between the victims and Parsons.

Gleckler began to get out of the car. He heard two shotgun blasts. At this point, however, Gleckler's arrest interview and trial testimony diverge. In the arrest interview Gleckler said that when he saw how badly the boys were shot, he went back to the car, loaded his gun, returned to the ditch where the boys lay bleeding, sounding as if they were choking, and shot each of them twice in the back of the head. Either Kirkpatrick or Parsons brought him shells to reload after his first shot.

Gleckler was asked when he decided to "finish" the boys off.

"A. After I had already looked down and they had so much blood running out of them, I knew there wasn't no way they could be saved.

Q. So you knew, in your own mind, you had to do that when you left and went back to the car car for shells?

A. They was just They were just laying there and dying. There wasn't no couldn't even have a doctor come in time."

The questioner continued:

"Q. Did either one of these young men put up any kind of a struggle struggle before being shot?

A. No sir. I didn't hear them say nothing.

Q. Did they have any chance for a defense to defend themselves?

A. Not that I know of. There there was no reason for it. I thought he (Parsons) was going to take them in the cornfield and tie them up, and that was

Q. Had you discussed, the three of you, that that would be the thing to do, to tie them up, or you just

A. No, I told them to take them and just tie them up, and I think that's good enough. I didn't have the slightest idea that was going to go on a ride with it.

Q. But at this point, your basic thing was your wanting the car?

A. That's all. Transportation.

Q. And then you were going to use that car of theirs to go back and pull the armed robbery of the liquor store? Is that correct?

A. Uh yes."

After the shootings, Gleckler said that he got into the Plymouth, whereas Parsons and Kirkpatrick rode in Parsons' car. Both cars drove by the liquor store, Gleckler stopping for gas along the way, but any plans to rob it were abandoned when it was determined that it was closed. When Parsons revealed a desire to rob a gas station, Gleckler at that point spoke to the effect that he explicitly withdrew from the criminal enterprise.

In response to leading questions about the appearance of the victims, Gleckler said he could not describe them, although he knew they were young, and that he knew nothing until reading press reports the next day of money that was missing from the victims' wallets. He also said that he brought the 12-gauge shotgun back to the trailer where he was staying, that he disposed of the Plymouth on the day after the murders by running it down a deep ravine in Indiana, and that he disposed of the clothes and gloves he was wearing that night by weighting them with a rock and throwing them in a creek. At the end of the questioning, Gleckler agreed that his answers had not been influenced in any way by law-enforcement officials and that they had discussed all significant aspects of the incident.

At the trial, however, Gleckler said that, after he heard the two shotgun blasts and got out of the car, Parsons ordered him to get a shotgun and shells and load it. Parsons then ordered him to shoot the victims. When Gleckler at first refused, Parsons said to shoot or he would blow his "f ing head off." Gleckler turned his head away and shot each victim. Gleckler testified at trial that Kirkpatrick did ride with him in the Plymouth after the shootings but that they did not stop for gas. Parsons allegedly came over to the Plymouth before driving away and told Gleckler that he would not be able to "tell" on him now because "you shot them too."

On cross-examination, Gleckler conceded that when he was arrested he had not told police of Parsons' threat. Nor had he so informed police after the initial arrest interview despite at least one such opportunity.

In a contradiction of his arrest statement, Gleckler testified that he had not weighted his clothes with a stone and disposed of them in water someplace. They were in fact found in the trailer where he lived. The only explanation attributable to Gleckler for the differences between his arrest interview and his trial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 cases
  • Pulley v. Harris
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1984
    ...406 So.2d 1103, 1109 (Fla.1981); McCaskill v. State, 344 So.2d 1276, 1278-1280 (Fla.1977); People v. Gleckler, 82 Ill.2d 145, 161-171, 44 Ill.Dec. 483, 490-495, 411 N.E.2d 849, 856-861 (1980); Smith v. Commonwealth, 634 S.W.2d 411, 413-414 (Ky.1982); State v. Sonnier, 380 So.2d 1, 5-9 (La.1......
  • Tichnell v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1982
    ...344 So.2d 1276 (Fla.1977); People v. Brownell, 79 Ill.2d 508, 38 Ill.Dec. 757, 404 N.E.2d 181 (1980); People v. Gleckler, 82 Ill.2d 145, 44 Ill.Dec. 483, 411 N.E.2d 849 (1980); Williams v. State, 430 N.E.2d 759 (Ind.1982); Judy v. State, 416 N.E.2d 95 (Ind.1981). Arkansas restricts its inve......
  • People v. Allen
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1986
    ...death here. (See People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 488-489, 194 Cal.Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697; cf. People v. Gleckler (1980) 82 Ill.2d 145, 44 Ill.Dec. 483, 495, 411 N.E.2d 849, 861; State v. McIlvoy (Mo.1982) 629 S.W.2d 333, 341-342; Sumlin v. State (1981) 273 Ark.185, 617 S.W.2d 372, 3......
  • U.S. v. Beckford
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • April 18, 1997
    ...(1993); Hoffman v. State of Florida, 474 So.2d 1178 (Fla.1985); State v. McIlvoy, 629 S.W.2d 333 (Mo.1982); People v. Gleckler, 82 Ill.2d 145, 44 Ill.Dec. 483, 411 N.E.2d 849 (1980). In this context, similar to that in which the allegedly "equally culpable" accomplice is uncharged, the sent......
  • 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