People v. Griffin, s. 62397

Decision Date12 March 1992
Docket Number69286,Nos. 62397,s. 62397
Parties, 170 Ill.Dec. 250 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Henry GRIFFIN, Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Neil F. Hartigan and Roland W. Burris, Attys. Gen., Springfield, and Richard M. Daley and Jack O'Malley, State's Attys., Chicago (Mark L. Rotert and Terence M. Madsen, Asst. Attys. Gen., of Chicago, and Thomas V. Gainer, Jr., Kenneth T. McCurry, Joan E. Disis, Renee Goldfarb and Joseph Brent, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.

Justice HEIPLE delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant, Henry Griffin, was found guilty of murder, solicitation to commit murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He was sentenced to death. Defendant's execution was stayed pending direct review by this court in cause No. 62397. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The State filed a motion to dismiss the petition, which was granted by the trial court. The dismissal of defendant's post-conviction petition was appealed directly to this court in cause No. 69286 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 4(b); 134 Ill.2d Rules 603, 609(a)). We affirm.

FACTS

The body of Carl Gibson was discovered near the 73rd Street exit ramp off of the Chicago Skyway on the morning of June 21, 1984. He had been shot four times at close range several hours earlier. A homicide investigation ensued.

At the time of the Gibson murder, the Chicago police department and the State's Attorney's office of Cook County were involved in "Operation Camelot"--an investigation of a major drug operation located on Chicago's south side. The investigation targeted the narcotics network of Charles Ashley, a drug dealer whose activities yielded an estimated $3 million annually. The victim was employed in Ashley's drug operation.

Also employed by Ashley's drug operation was Darryl Moore, who was arrested in August 1984 on drug and unlawful use of weapons charges. While in jail, Moore contacted Michael Pochordo, a detective with the Violent Crimes Division of the Chicago police department. Moore informed Pochordo that he had information concerning the Gibson murder and Pochordo set up a meeting with Moore and representatives of the State's Attorney's office. At a meeting on August 7, 1984, Moore supplied the State's Attorney's office with information concerning defendant's involvement in the murder. The information was sufficient for them to request permission for a consensual overhear device for use in Moore's contact with defendant. Application for the overhear device was approved by the circuit court of Cook County on August 8, 1984. On August 9, 1984, a tape-recording device was assembled at the State's Attorney's office, and Moore was instructed to call defendant. Moore recognized defendant's voice because he had known him through their "enforcer" work, and had spoken to him at least 100 times. During his taped conversation with Moore, defendant implicated himself in the murder of Carl Gibson.

Defendant was subsequently arrested and transported to the Violent Crimes Division in Area I. James Allen was also arrested in connection with the incident, and the men were placed in separate interview rooms. Assistant State's Attorney Neil Cohen was introduced to defendant and read defendant his Miranda warnings. Defendant inquired as to whether Cohen had talked to Allen and, upon hearing that Allen had made a statement, waived his Miranda rights and confessed to his participation in Gibson's murder. Defendant's confession revealed the following facts.

Ashley approached defendant and asked him if he would kill Gibson for $2,500. Ashley said that he wanted Gibson eliminated because he suspected that Gibson was secretly passing information to police. The offer was made and accepted in the presence of James Allen. Defendant and Allen then proceeded to the apartment of Darryl Moore, to obtain a gun. Moore was a fellow "enforcer" for Ashley and he and defendant had worked together in the past. Moore gave defendant a .38-caliber revolver, and defendant and Allen left the apartment and dropped off members of defendant's family at home.

Defendant returned from the family home to the car accompanied by Carl Gibson. Allen drove the car, Gibson sat in the passenger seat, and defendant sat in the back seat. Allen drove onto the Chicago Skyway at 89th Street, proceeding southbound. When he reached a toll plaza, he turned the car around and proceeded northbound. While driving northbound on the Subsequent to his confession, defendant was indicted with his codefendants Charles Ashley and James Allen, for conspiracy to commit murder, solicitation to commit murder and murder. Prior to trial, the court found defendant fit to stand trial and denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. The case was tried before a jury in June 1985. Moore testified as part of the State's evidence against defendant. Additionally, Assistant State's Attorney Cohen testified regarding the defendant's oral and written confessions. The taped telephone conversation between Moore and the defendant was also admitted into evidence. Following presentation of the State's evidence, the defense called its only witness, Detective Pochordo. Pochordo testified that he was initially contacted by Moore and that Moore had been an informant in 10 previous homicide cases, six of which had resulted in murder convictions to date. The jury found defendant guilty on all counts.

[170 Ill.Dec. 252] Skyway, defendant shot Gibson four times in the back of the head with a .38-caliber revolver. Allen then exited the Skyway at 73rd Street and stopped the car on the exit ramp. Defendant then pulled the body out of the car. The next day, defendant gave the murder weapon to Ashley. The rental car used in the slaying was disposed of by defendant and Allen. Defendant was paid by Ashley in cash and cocaine.

Defendant raises numerous issues on appeal, none of which have merit.

POST-CONVICTION PETITION

On November 17, 1989, defendant filed a post-conviction petition alleging that "substantial perjury" was employed to convict defendant and that the State's Attorney's office knew or should have known of the perjured evidence. Specifically, the petition alleged that Darryl Moore was paid $25,000 by the State's Attorney's office to lie at defendant's trial, and that Detective Pochordo's affidavit which supported the taped conversation was also a lie. Attached to the petition was a transcript of a video recording wherein Moore recanted his trial testimony and an excerpt of Moore's testimony at an unrelated trial. The petition requested an evidentiary hearing.

The video recording was taken on August 20, 1986, by defense attorney, Sam Adam. On the recording, Moore stated that his testimony at the defendant's trial was a lie. He further stated that his testimony was based on information he had received from Detective Pochordo and members of the State's Attorney's office. In particular, Moore had received a copy of James Allen's 16-page statement made subsequent to his arrest for the murder. In return for his testimony, Moore stated that he was housed in a Holidome hotel with his fiancee, that his living expenses were paid for, and that he was provided with money to purchase a catering truck from which he could sell hot food. Moore testified that the money for his "lavish lifestyle" came from the State's Attorney's office.

On August 10, 1987, Moore was a key witness in another Cook County homicide case, People v. Freeman, No. 86-CR-2090. During his testimony, Moore stated that he had lied at defendant's trial, and had been paid to do so by Detective Pochordo and members of the State's Attorney's office.

The State filed a motion to dismiss defendant's petition on September 27, 1989, arguing that the petition failed to raise any constitutional questions within the scope of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 122-1 et seq.). On September 28, 1989, Judge Earl Strayhorn of the circuit court of Cook County heard argument on the motion to dismiss and granted same, finding "no constitutional imperfections as to petitioner's rights in the trial of the case."

At the outset, we note that the trial court properly proceeded on the motion to dismiss pursuant to section 122-5 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 122-5).

Defendant contends that Moore perjured himself by his trial testimony and that the trial court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on defendant's post-conviction petition for relief. The line of cases cited by defendant for the proposition that an evidentiary The Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not require a trial judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Act gives the post-conviction judge broad discretion as to the type of evidence he may consider in ruling on the allegation of the petition. Section 122-6 of the Act provides: "The court may receive proof by affidavits, depositions, oral testimony, or other evidence." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 122-6.) In People v. Derengowski (1969), 44 Ill.2d 476, 256 N.E.2d 455, this court held that "an evidentiary hearing is not always necessary 'since the circuit court, upon a motion to dismiss a post-conviction petition, may render its decision on the basis of what is contained in the pleading to which the motion is directed, considered with the transcript of trial or other proceedings.' " (44 Ill.2d at 478-79, 256 N.E.2d 455, quoting People v. Morris (1969) 43 Ill.2d 124, 128, 251 N.E.2d 202.) The trial court was provided with transcripts of Moore's recantation as well as trial transcripts from the unrelated trial in which Moore once again testified that he had lied in defendant's trial.

[170 Ill.Dec. 253] hearing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • People v. Griffin
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 11 Septiembre 1997
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 19 Mayo 1994
    ... ... The prosecutor's opening statement was a fair overview of what the evidence would show. See People v. Griffin (1992), 148 Ill.2d 45, 55, 170 Ill.Dec. 250, 592 N.E.2d 930 ...         We next consider defendant's contention that he was denied a fair ... ...
  • People v. Allen
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 21 Mayo 2015
    ...out of defendant's car to carry out Ciralski's murder. Griffin was already on death row for the murder of Gibson. See People v. Griffin, 148 Ill.2d 45, 170 Ill.Dec. 250, 592 N.E.2d 930 (1992). Pochordo began looking for Freeman, who was located in Rockford. He arranged to speak to defendant......
  • People v. Pace
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 11 Septiembre 2015
    ...lacks merit, his counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise it in the motion to vacate. See People v. Griffin, 148 Ill.2d 45, 57, 170 Ill.Dec. 250, 592 N.E.2d 930 (1992) (attorney's failure to challenge voluntariness of post-arrest statement not ineffective assistance because argument......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • 1 Mayo 2013
    ...People v. Gregg , 315 Ill App 3d 59, 732 NE2d 1152 (2000), §§2:30, 2:100, 2:160, 2:220 Illinois Objections A-566 People v. Griffin , 148 Ill 2d 45, 592 NE2d 930 (1992), §13:30 People v. Griffin , 361 Ill App 3d 136, 836 NE2d 750 (2005), §1:60 People v. Griffin , 368 Ill App 3d 369, 857 NE2d......
  • Photographs, Recordings & X-Rays
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • 1 Mayo 2013
    ...NE2d 378 (2011) (alleged hearsay statement by detective on taped statement was not hearsay and thus was admissible); People v. Griffin , 148 Ill 2d 45, 592 NE2d 930 (1992), writ of habeas corpus granted on ineffectiveness of counsel, state to resentence defendant within 120 days , 622 F 3d ......

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