People v. Gorham, 77-898

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtMcNAMARA; JIGANTI, P. J., and McGILLICUDDY
Citation23 Ill.Dec. 370,384 N.E.2d 6,66 Ill.App.3d 320
Parties, 23 Ill.Dec. 370 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert GORHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 77-898,77-898
Decision Date28 June 1978

Page 6

384 N.E.2d 6
66 Ill.App.3d 320, 23 Ill.Dec. 370
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Robert GORHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 77-898.
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.
June 28, 1978.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1979.

Page 7

[23 Ill.Dec. 371] Ralph Ruebner, Deputy State Appellate Defender and Richard J. Geddes, Asst. App. Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

[66 Ill.App.3d 321] Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago (Lee Hettinger, Joan S. Cherry, Armand L. Andry, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

McNAMARA, Justice.

Defendant, Robert Gorham, was charged with the murder of Kenneth Thompson. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of that crime and the court sentenced him to 100 to 200 years. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's pre-trial motion to suppress his confession.

At the hearing on the motion the following evidence was adduced. At approximately 4:00 p. m. on April 2, 1976, Officers Carl Kuester and Joseph Robustelli of the Chicago Heights Police Department arrested defendant in a drug rehabilitation center in the City of Peoria. Robustelli read the complaint and warrant to defendant and Kuester read defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant did not respond. Defendant was involved in a methadone program and had received an eight-milligram dosage that morning. Defendant was not interrogated.

Defendant was brought before a judge in Peoria. Following a hearing the judge remanded defendant to Cook County. The officers and defendant arrived in Chicago at 9:30 p. m. Defendant was not questioned during the trip.

Upon arriving at the Cook County Criminal Courts building, defendant was taken to assistant State's Attorney Gillis' office. Kuester and Robustelli turned defendant over to a Lieutenant Barger and departed. Prosecutors Helsel and Prendergast and, later, IBI agent Thomas Naughton also were present.

Barger advised defendant of his Miranda rights and asked him if he wished to make a statement. He told defendant that the arrest warrant could not have been secured

Page 8

[23 Ill.Dec. 372] without some evidence. Defendant asked, "What evidence?", but Barger did not reveal any evidence to him. According to Barger, defendant said he did not wish to make a statement.

IBI agent Naughton testified that when asked by Barger if he would make a statement, defendant replied it was a "pretty heavy beef" and he was not sure whether he wished to make a formal statement. Defendant said he had spent four years at Menard and many people there were convicted only because they did give statements. Defendant was not sure he wanted "to go that route." After Barger left the room Naughton asked defendant whether he ever felt guilty and defendant replied that sometimes he did. Naughton also asked defendant why he was so foolish to sell the gun when the murder was such "a good hit." Defendant stated he sold the gun to obtain dope.

At about 10:00 p. m., Robustelli and Kuester returned to the prosecutor's [66 Ill.App.3d 322] office. They again advised defendant of his rights and he stated that he understood them. They asked defendant if he wanted to talk about "it" and he asked "about what?" Robustelli told defendant that the police had recovered the gun and knew that the murder had been committed to obtain insurance money. Defendant was told that the authorities knew how the insurance money had been spent. He was then told that Kathleen Thompson, decedent's widow, had been arrested and had told the police everything.

Defendant asked if she was in the building. When told that she was, he asked that he be allowed to see her. She was brought to the office immediately.

When Thompson entered, defendant asked her what she had told the police. After Barger told her to tell defendant, she said, "I told them everything." She sat on the couch with defendant and they kissed. Thompson told defendant that they should tell the police everything and get it all out in the open. At approximately 10:15 p. m. defendant gave the officers an oral statement relating his involvement in the murder of decedent.

At approximately 11:15 p. m., in the presence of two prosecutors, Officer Kuester, and a court reporter, defendant gave a statement. When reduced to writing, it consisted of 42 pages. Defendant read, corrected, and signed each of 42 pages. The prosecutors signed as witnesses, and testified that defendant did not exhibit any physical signs of withdrawal, was offered food, and was not coerced. In the statement defendant admitted that he conspired with decedent's wife to kill decedent in order to get the latter's insurance. Defendant described the murder in detail.

At the hearing, defendant testified that he was 25 years old and had an eleventh grade education. His testimony concerning his arrest and the trip to Chicago corroborated that given by the police officers. He also stated that he was advised of his rights. He testified that he replied negatively when asked if he would like to make a statement. According to defendant, Robustelli told him he would get "100 to 300" if he did not make a statement. Robustelli subsequently denied having said that to defendant. Defendant also testified that he told others he did not wish to make a statement and denied having requested to see decedent's widow. He further stated that she told him things would go easier for him if he talked and the police confirmed this statement. Robustelli said repeatedly that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 d2 Fevereiro d2 1988
    ...revealing of incriminating evidence against a defendant does not constitute psychological coercion in itself. People v. Gorham (1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 320, 324, 23 Ill.Dec. 370, 374, 384 N.E.2d 6, Although one of the factors considered by the court in Michigan v. Mosley was that the second in......
  • People v. Wright, 5-85-0272
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 28 d2 Junho d2 1988
    ...or other incriminating statements needs only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Gorham (1st Dist.1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 320, 325, 23 Ill.Dec. 370, 374, 384 N.E.2d 6, 10.) An express formalistic waiver of one's Miranda rights is not required. Any clear manifestation of a ......
  • State v. Householder, 2499
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 15 d2 Abril d2 1986 reveal incriminating evidence against a defendant." People v. Gorham, 66 Ill.App.3d 320, 324, 23 Ill.Dec. 370, 384 N.E.2d 6 (1978).         We reach ......
  • Gorham v. Franzen, 83-3159
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 3 d1 Junho d1 1985
    .......         Gorham appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court. People v. Gorham, . Page 788 . 6 Ill.App.3d 320, 23 Ill.Dec. 370, 384 N.E.2d 6 (1978). Gorham based his appeal on the ground that he had not knowingly ......
  • 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