People v. Guest
| Decision Date | 19 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 58728,58728 |
| Citation | 115 Ill.2d 72,104 Ill.Dec. 698,503 N.E.2d 255 |
| Parties | , 104 Ill.Dec. 698 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Anthony GUEST, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Charles M. Schiedel, Deputy Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Springfield, Lawrence J. Essig, Asst. Defender, for appellant.
Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Mark L. Rotert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, for appellee; Richard M. Daley, State's Atty., Chicago, Joan S. Cherry, Kevin Sweeney, Maureen Harton, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.
Defendant, Anthony Guest, was charged by information filed in the circuit court of Cook County with five counts of murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, pars. 9- 1(a)(1) through (a)(3)), one count of attempted murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 8-4), three counts of aggravated kidnaping (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, pars. 10-2(a)(3), (a)(5)), two counts of aggravated battery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, pars. 12-4(a)(b)(1)), eight counts of armed violence (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 33A-2), and two counts of unlawful use of weapons (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, pars. 24-1(a)(4), (a)(10)). The defendant waived a jury trial, and his case was tried to the court. At the conclusion of trial, defendant was found guilty of the following charges: (1) one count of intentional murder; (2) one count of knowing murder; (3) one count of felony murder; (4) one count of attempted murder; (5) one count of aggravated battery; and (6) two counts of unlawful use of weapons. The court merged the convictions for attempted murder and aggravated battery.
The defendant received a sentence of 30 years for attempted murder, with a mandatory supervised release period of three years. This sentence was to run consecutively to two sentences in the State of Tennessee for armed robbery and bank robbery and consecutively to two sentences of 35 years and life imprisonment imposed in the State of Missouri for two armed robberies. The defendant was sentenced to 360 days on each count of unlawful use of weapons, with those sentences to run concurrently with the sentence for attempted murder but consecutively to his sentences in Tennessee and Missouri. In addition, the defendant was sentenced to death for murder under the multiple-murder aggravating-factor provision of the death penalty statute (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 9-1(b)(3)). Because the death penalty has been imposed, defendant's appeal comes directly to this court pursuant to Rule 603 (87 Ill.2d R. 603).
The facts are not in dispute. On February 5, 1981, defendant entered a Chicago grocery store. Ferris King, a security guard, observed him place toothpaste and a toothbrush in his pocket. King approached the defendant, identified himself, and asked the defendant to accompany him to his office located in the basement of the building. Defendant complied. However, when the two men arrived at the office, defendant confronted King with a handgun.
Thereafter King, followed by defendant, left the office and proceeded to an employee's cafeteria also located in the basement. Three employees--Joanne Bailey, Marlean Washington, and Gary Henderson--were in the cafeteria when the two men entered. As two of the employees attempted to flee, defendant began firing in their direction. King responded by reaching for his gun, at which point defendant fired at him, hitting him in the shoulder. Defendant then fled, running south down a corridor, up the stairs, and out the front of the store. King then abandoned his pursuit of the defendant and, moments later, found John Geever, another employee, wounded and lying at the south end of the first floor. Geever subsequently died of a gunshot wound.
We briefly summarize certain of the testimony at trial and various stipulations which are relevant to resolution of issues defendant raises concerning the conduct of his trial.
Bailey testified that, shortly before King and defendant entered, she saw Geever come in, purchase a can of soda and leave through a door on the south side of the room. She also testified on direct examination that the defendant fired a shot towards her. On cross-examination, Bailey admitted that on the date of the incident she did not tell police that defendant had fired a shot towards her or that she had seen Geever in the cafeteria prior to the shooting. At this point in Bailey's cross-examination, defense counsel moved to strike her testimony for alleged noncompliance with discovery, specifically asserting the State's failure to disclose her statements regarding Geever's presence in the cafeteria shortly before the shooting. The trial court denied defendant's motion.
Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial, alleging his own ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to interview Bailey prior to trial. Counsel contended that he was ineffective because, considering the asserted circumstantial nature of the State's case, had he discovered this evidence he would not have advised the defendant to waive his right to a jury trial. The trial court also denied this motion.
The parties stipulated that if Washington were to testify she would state that she was in the cafeteria in the company of Bailey and Henderson and that, when the defendant fired the first shot, she tipped one of the tables on its side and hid behind it. She would testify further that, after the defendant and King left the cafeteria, she heard a commotion at the south end of the hallway; that she walked toward the south end of the hallway; and that she found Geever lying on the hallway floor at the foot of the south staircase. She would further testify that Geever told her he was hurt, and that he then got up, climbed to the top of the stairs, and collapsed.
There were other stipulations concerning various police officers who had worked on the investigation. Two detectives would have testified that Henderson picked out a photograph of the defendant and stated that it bore a resemblance to the perpetrator. The detectives would have testified further that they showed various photographs to King, Bailey, and Washington and that each of them picked out a picture of the defendant, stating that it looked like the perpetrator but noting that the perpetrator had shorter hair and was clean shaven. There was a further stipulation that defendant was identified by King and Washington at a later lineup.
The parties stipulated regarding the testimony of two evidence technicians who investigated the scene and discovered bullet fragments in various locations in the basement of the store. They would have testified that the fragments were placed in an envelope and marked for identification but that none of the fragments proved suitable for identification or comparison. In addition, one of the technicians would have testified that he delivered to the crime lab a sealed medical examiner's envelope containing the bullet recovered from the body of the victim. It was stipulated that the crime lab also received the revolver which was used by King on the date in question. By further stipulation, the firearms examiner would have testified that he "test fired" King's gun, compared those bullets with the bullet recovered from the victim's body, and was of the opinion that the bullet recovered from the body was not fired from King's gun.
King testified at trial that he was taken to the hospital by police for treatment of his wound. At the hospital, he removed his shirt, at which time an "intact" bullet fell out. He testified that a uniformed officer retrieved the bullet. However, there was conflicting testimony at trial by uniformed police officers who were at the hospital when King was treated. They testified that they had no knowledge of a bullet being recovered.
We noted above that defendant was found guilty of murder, attempted murder, aggravated battery, and unlawful use of weapons. As to the convictions for murder, defense counsel moved, prior to the death sentencing hearing, for a "specific finding of facts as to the murder counts." He argued that he would have "substantially different arguments to adduce, different mitigation to adduce," during the hearing depending upon whether defendant was found to have killed Geever under the intentional-murder provision of the statute or under the felony-murder provision. The court denied the motion. On several occasions, defense counsel unsuccessfully renewed this motion.
During the first phase of the sentencing hearing, there was testimony that the defendant had been tried by a jury and convicted of second-degree murder in Los Angeles County, California. There, defendant was sentenced as follows: 15 years to life plus a consecutive determinate-enhancement term of 3 years for murder; 2 years for personal use of a handgun; and 1 year for a prior conviction. These sentences were to be served consecutively to the sentences he was serving in Missouri.
The defendant raises 19 issues. The first five issues pertain to the trial of this cause; eight issues concern the sentencing hearing; five issues involve the constitutionality of the death penalty statute; and one issue deals with two motions which we took with this case regarding the Agreement on Detainers.
We turn initially to consideration of the issues raised regarding the trial of this cause. Defendant first maintains that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He argues that the State's evidence established that the gunshots attributed to him through King's testimony were accounted for in such a way that he could not be the cause of the fatal wound. One shot was fired in the direction of the three employees seated in the cafeteria. Another shot was fired at King, wounding him in the shoulder. The third shot was fired, also in the direction of King, while defendant was fleeing down the basement hallway. Defendant contends that no further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christian S., In re
... 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 ... 7 Cal.4th 768, 872 P.2d 574 ... In re CHRISTIAN S., a person coming under the juvenile court law ... The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, ... CHRISTIAN S., Defendant and Appellant ... No. S030310 ... Supreme Court of California, ... May 16, 1994 ... (State v. Faulkner (1984) 301 Md. 482, 483 A.2d 759; see also People Guest (1986) 115 Ill.2d 72, 104 Ill.Dec. 698, 503 N.E.2d 255; Wood v. State (Okla.Crim.App.1971) 486 P.2d 750; State v. Mendoza (1977) 80 Wis.2d 122, 258 ... ...
-
People v. Hampton
... ... Defendant failed to object to the complained-of comments at the sentencing hearing and failed to raise the [149 Ill.2d 94] issue in his post-sentencing motion. Such failure results in a waiver of the issue on review. (People v. Guest (1986), 115 Ill.2d 72, 109, 104 Ill.Dec. 698, 503 N.E.2d 255; People v. Szabo (1986), 113 Ill.2d 83, 93, 100 Ill.Dec. 726, 497 N.E.2d 995.) Defendant urges us to consider the issue under the "plain error" exception to the waiver rule under which an otherwise waived error may be considered ... ...
-
People v. Enoch
... ... We have held generally that the defendant must show actual prejudice, and unless there is a reasonable possibility that but for counsel's errors the result would have been different, a new trial will not be granted. People v. Guest (1986), 115 Ill.2d 72, 88-89, 104 Ill.Dec. 698, 503 N.E.2d 255; People v. Free (1986), 112 Ill.2d 154, 169, 97 Ill.Dec. 396, 492 N.E.2d 1269; People v. Weir (1986), 111 Ill.2d 334, 338-39, 95 Ill.Dec. 528, 490 N.E.2d 1; People v. Albanese (1984), 104 Ill.2d 504, 525-27, 85 Ill.Dec. 441, 473 ... ...
-
People v. Hall, 1-89-1841
... ... Lucente (1987), 116 Ill.2d 133, 107 Ill.Dec. 214, 506 N.E.2d 1269 (police reports ordered to be produced by the trial court could not be located); People v. Guest (1986), 115 Ill.2d 72, 104 Ill.Dec. 698, 503 N.E.2d 255 (bullet lost); People v. Emrich (1986), 113 Ill.2d 343, 101 Ill.Dec. 632, 498 N.E.2d 1140 (State failed to properly preserve blood sample taken from defendant[235 Ill.App.3d 443] prior to independent analysis by defense counsel); People v ... ...
-
CRIMINAL LAW: CAPITAL FELONY MERGER.
...N.D. CENT. CODE [section] 12.1-16-01 (1993); id. [section] 12.1-02-02.3 (1973); id. [section] 12.1-02-02.1, 2.2 (1973); People v. Guest, 503 N.E.2d 255 (Ill. 1986); People v. McEwen 157, 510 N.E.2d 74, 79 (111. App. Ct. (121) See State by State, supra note 102. (122) ROBINSON & WILLIAMS......