People v. Gross

Decision Date08 February 1988
Docket NumberNo. 85-2292,85-2292
Citation166 Ill.App.3d 413,519 N.E.2d 1043
Parties, 116 Ill.Dec. 828 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard GROSS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael D. Ettinger, Barry S. Pechter, Oak Lawn, for defendant-appellant, Howard Gross.

Richard M. Daley, State's Atty., Sharon Gaull, Elizabeth Sklarsky, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.

Justice O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a bench trial, defendant Howard Gross was convicted of the murder of Gregory Horn and sentenced to 20 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. On appeal, he raises the following issues: (1) whether, during the pre-trial hearing on a motion to suppress, the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution's cross-examination to exceed the scope of the direct examination; (2) whether defendant was found guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) whether the trial court erred in not allowing defendant to answer a question regarding his specific intent to commit murder; and (4) whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered as a result of the warrantless search of defendant's apartment. We affirm.

On July 15, 1983, defendant was arrested for the murder of Gregory Horn. The evidence of the events up until the time of the shooting is not in dispute. On the evening of July 15, 1983, Gregory Horn was visiting with friends on a roof-top patio located at 7405 W. 60th Place in Summit, Illinois. The building next door, at 7403 W. 60th Place, was owned by defendant's brother Cletus Gross. Defendant and his mother occupied the first floor of 7403 and the second floor was rented by Horn's girlfriend.

At about 9:00 that evening, prior to going to 7405 W. 60th Place, Horn had gone into his girl friend's apartment to take a shower. Defendant testified that he heard Horn going up to the apartment and told him that he didn't belong there as no one was at home. Horn responded that he would go into the apartment whenever he wanted to. Defendant testified that he intended to call the police, but before he could do so, he saw his brother, Cletus, in the back yard. Cletus offered to take care of the situation, and about 30 minutes later went over to 7405 W. 60th Place to talk to Horn. Cletus testified that he and Horn had a conversation during which Cletus asked for Horn's keys to the upstairs apartment. After Cletus told Horn he "had no business there," Horn allegedly began using vulgar language and then hit Cletus twice with his fists, once on the forehead above the right eye and once on his left ear.

The evidence as to what occurred after this point varies. At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence and statements, defendant testified that on the evening of July 15, 1983, he heard a scuffle outside of his apartment. He first stated that he looked outside and saw his brother, Cletus, fall face down on the sidewalk but later stated that he did not actually see him fall. He testified that he went to help Cletus but could not get over the fence between his property and a neighboring house. He stated that he then went back into his house to call the police, but "did not get the number."

After unsuccessfully trying to call the police, he picked up his gun, which was lying on the air conditioner, and went back into the yard. He stated that he went over to the fence and looked into the alley. He then was grabbed with a "choke lock" by someone who tried to pull him over the fence. He stated that he tried to hit the man over his shoulder. After the person fell to the ground, he went into the house to call the paramedics. He stated that he thought Cletus might be dead and he "knew what was wrong" with the other person. He was unable to reach paramedics due to a problem with his phone and did not know whether Cletus or someone else finally called the police.

Officer John Gieseler testified that he responded to a call that took him to the area of 7403 to 7405 60th Place in Summit. He saw the victim lying in the gangway and was told by Fred Patrick that the offender had gone into the first building east of the gangway. Officers Gieseler, Stancato and Hyde then walked into the building. They knocked on the closed door of defendant's apartment and advised Mr. Gross that there had been a shooting and asked if anyone had come in. Mr. Gross stepped out of the way and walked over to the kitchen table and sat down, leaving the door open.

Officer Michael Stancato testified that the apartment door was open and that he had a conversation with defendant. The defendant stated that he had shot the victim and told the officer where the gun was located. Officer Stancato then recovered the gun from the top of the air conditioner.

Defendant's motion to suppress the gun and the statements made to the police was denied based on the trial court's finding that the entry into defendant's house was consensual and that the gun was retrieved only after defendant informed the officers of its location.

Several hours after the incident, Cletus Gross was interviewed by an assistant State's Attorney in the presence of an attorney representing defendant. During the interview, Cletus stated that Horn struck him on the forehead but that he did not fall down. He told the State's Attorney that after he was hit, he heard a shot. He looked around and saw Horn falling and then turned and saw his brother. He also said that he saw "a big long thing ... in [my] brother's...." but did not complete the statement.

The testimony Cletus gave at trial varied substantially from the statement he made the night of the incident. At trial, Cletus testified that after Horn hit him, he flew 4 or 5 feet through the air, landed face down on the concrete and lost consciousness for an indeterminate period of time. He described the sound he had heard as an "explosion" rather than a shot and testified that he did not know what the sound was. He also testified that at no time between when he and Horn had their conversation until after the police arrived did he see defendant outside of defendant's apartment.

Cletus also testified that he went to a hospital emergency room the day after the incident but he was told that there was no damage and that he needed no treatment. Officer Stancato, who arrived first at the scene and talked to Cletus upon his arrival, testified at trial that he had observed no apparent injuries to Cletus other than a slight redness around his ear.

At trial defendant testified that he heard a commotion outside and when he went outside saw Cletus come "flying out from between the two houses" and land face down on the sidewalk. Before he went over to Cletus, he went back into his house to get his gun, which he kept on the air conditioner. Defendant denied that he went back to call the police after first observing his brother on the ground.

Carrying his gun, defendant walked over to where his brother was lying. He testified that when he turned to look toward the street, someone grabbed him from behind. He stated that he hit the person by holding his gun in his right hand with his finger on the trigger and swinging it over his left shoulder. The person who was holding him tried to take the gun away by jerking it out of his hand. During the struggle, the gun fired once. After the gun was fired, the hold on him was released and defendant walked back into his apartment. Defendant stated that he knew there were two "bodies" lying on the ground.

Officer Stancato testified that when he arrived at the scene he talked to Cletus, who was standing at the curb. He asked Cletus what had happened but Cletus said he did not know. According to Officer Stancato, the defendant first told the police that he did not know who shot the victim and did not know where the gun was. When asked a second time, defendant admitted shooting the victim and told the officers where the gun was located.

Medical evidence was offered by way of stipulation and revealed that the victim was a 22 year old male who weighed 210 pounds and was 5' 10"' tall. The pathologist who performed an autopsy on the victim concluded that the victim died from a single gunshot wound to the neck which perforated the treachea and esophagus and lacerated the spinal cord. The bullet coursed from front to back, slightly right to left, and slightly downward. The defendant testified that he was 64 years old, was about 5' 5"' tall and weighed 275 pounds.

In finding defendant guilty of murder, the trial court noted that there was no evidence that would give rise to a finding of manslaughter, nor was there any justification for the shooting. The trial court also weighed defendant's credibility and based on the many inconsistencies in the testimony coupled with the physical and medical evidence, determined that the shooting was not accidental. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant's first contention is that the trial court improperly allowed cross-examination of the defendant to exceed the scope of the direct examination at the hearing on his motion to suppress. Defendant maintains that he was prejudiced by this cross-examination because the trial court considered the statements he made during cross-examination in finding him guilty of murder. The State maintains that the cross-examination was proper because it developed the circumstances regarding the officers' appearance at defendant's apartment and explained why it was permissible for them to enter his home without a warrant.

The general rule is that cross-examination is limited to matters covered on direct examination (People v. DuLong (1965), 33 Ill.2d 140, 144, 210 N.E.2d 513), however, the rule is modified to the extent that cross-examination may develop all circumstances within the knowledge of the witness "which explain, qualify, discredit or destroy his direct testimony." (People v. Perez (1981), 98...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Turner v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 30, 2000
    ...not show consent to enter solely from the defendant's failure to object to the entry."). By contrast, in People v. Gross, 166 Ill.App.3d 413, 116 Ill.Dec. 828, 519 N.E.2d 1043 (1988), the defendant telephoned the police and the paramedics. The police arrived at his apartment, identified the......
  • People v. Batchelor
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 17, 1990
    ...also within the court's discretion to question witnesses in an attempt to clarify points of testimony (People v. Gross (1988), 166 Ill.App.3d 413, 422, 116 Ill.Dec. 828, 519 N.E.2d 1043) or eliminate confusion and curtail repetition (People v. Wells (1982), 106 Ill.App.3d 1077, 1086, 62 Ill......
  • People v. Anthony
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 6, 2001
    ...where a defendant opened the door for the police, then went inside and sat down at the kitchen table. People v. Gross, 166 Ill.App.3d 413, 423, 116 Ill.Dec. 828, 519 N.E.2d 1043 (1988); see also United States v. Walls, 225 F.3d 858, 863 (7th Cir.2000) (defendant conveyed her consent to agen......
  • People v. Enoch
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 29, 1989
    ...to clarify obscure matters, so long as the court remains fair and impartial in its questioning. (People v. Gross (1988), 166 Ill.App.3d 413, 422, 116 Ill.Dec. 828, 835, 519 N.E.2d 1043, 1050; People v. White (1973), 16 Ill.App.3d 419, 425, 306 N.E.2d 660, 666.) A trial court has not imprope......
  • 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