People v. Harbold

• Decision Date: 30 September 1991
• Docket Number: No. 1-89-2849,1-89-2849
• Parties: , 163 Ill.Dec. 181 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph HARBOLD, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 132

581 N.E.2d 132

220 Ill.App.3d 611, 163 Ill.Dec. 181

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph HARBOLD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-89-2849.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, Fifth Division.

Sept. 30, 1991.

F. Lee Bailey, Kenneth J. Fishman, Daniel P. Leonard, Bailey, Fishman & Leonard, Boston, Mass., Michael B. Nash, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Jack O'Malley, State's Atty. of Cook County (Renee Goldfarb, Gael M. O'Brien, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Presiding Justice LORENZ delivered the opinion of the court:

After his first conviction for murder was reversed on appeal and remanded for new trial (People v. Harbold (1984), 124 Ill.App.3d 363, 79 Ill.Dec. 830, 464 N.E.2d 734), a jury again found defendant, Ralph Harbold, guilty of murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 9-1(a)(1)). He was sentenced to an extended term of 70 years' Prior to the second trial, defendant moved in limine to exclude a circular saw and expert testimony relating to blood splatters on the saw arguing its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial nature. The motion was denied.

[163 Ill.Dec. 183] imprisonment and he now appeals. We consider the following issues: (1) whether the prosecutor made improper comments during closing argument which were not based on the evidence and prejudiced defendant; (2) whether the denial of defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence was manifestly erroneous; and (3) whether defendant was denied a fair trial when he was limited to seven peremptory challenges under Supreme Court Rule 434(d) (134 Ill.2d R. 434(d)). For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for new trial.

Also prior to trial, when considering motions relating to the opinion reversing defendant's conviction, a judge warned the assistant State's Attorney regarding the presentation of motive evidence: "If you go into motive testimony at any time in your case in chief other than what I've ruled on, I'm going to hold you in contempt, I'm warning you now so we don't have any misunderstanding."

The following testimony from trial is relevant to our decision.

On March 31, 1981, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Frank Paul was stabbed several times in his business office. Covered in blood, he staggered to a restaurant across the street and told the owner, "I've been attacked." Paul lost consciousness and died within a short time.

Investigating the murder, the police found that the back door to Paul's office was open. Inside, a trail of blood led to a room where there was evidence of a struggle, however, there was no sign of a forced entry and nothing was missing.

In a search of the surrounding area outside Paul's office, the police found items which appeared to have blood on them. These items included a pair of rubber gloves, a knife, and a camel-colored sport coat with keys to Paul's office in the pocket. The left-hand rubber glove had a cut in the area between the thumb and forefinger.

Dr. T.L. An, a pathologist, performed an autopsy on Paul. He testified that Paul received seven stab wounds and ten cutting wounds, several of which indicated that Paul was attempting to defend himself. In An's opinion, the wounds could have been caused by a knife with a blade at least four inches long.

Michael Podlecki, a forensic scientist, testified that ABO blood-type analysis showed Paul's blood was type A and defendant's blood was type O. All the blood samples found at or near the scene were either type A or type O. Both type A and O were found inside Paul's office and on the camel-colored sport coat. Type A was found on the knife and type O was found on the rubber gloves. In addition to blood-type analysis, Podlecki testified that the impression in the blood on the knife was consistent with the pattern on the rubber gloves. In his amended report, he indicated that the cut in the web of the left-hand rubber glove was 11 centimeters long. Podlecki also testified that blond hairs found at the scene and on the knife were not consistent with defendant's hair which was black.

Susan Perna, Paul's daughter, testified that defendant and his family were good friends of her family's.

Nancy Paul Horton, Paul's wife who subsequently remarried, testified that she and defendant shared an interest in airplanes and collector's cars. Horton owned a business that operated two airports in Wisconsin and sold airplanes. Defendant purchased two airplanes from Horton's business and leased them back to the business. The week before Paul was murdered, she gave defendant a set of keys to start one of her cars in storage and defendant returned the keys within two days. The set included keys to Paul's office. Horton also testified that the camel-colored sport coat found outside Paul's office was the same type as a sport coat that defendant often wore.

Other members of Paul's family testified that after the murder, between April 1 and April 5, they attempted to contact defendant Several police officers also attempted to contact defendant at his home and at his office after the murder but were unsuccessful.

[163 Ill.Dec. 184] by telephone but could not reach him. Defendant did not attend Paul's funeral.

Marlene Harbold, defendant's sister, testified that beginning on April 5, she took care of defendant's children in his house because he was sick. She testified that defendant had a bandage on his left hand. Defendant told her he nicked his thumb with a saw and accidentally cut the web of his hand, between the thumb and forefinger, with a butcher knife.

Ann Gover, defendant's employee, testified that defendant did not work from April 1 until April 7 because he had been sick. When he returned, she noticed a cut on his left hand in the web between the thumb and forefinger. Defendant told her he cut his hand while installing panelling.

On defendant's first day back at work, Officer Curtis Frost interviewed him in his office. When Frost first saw defendant, he noticed a cut on his left hand, a couple of inches long, between the thumb and forefinger covered by bandages. Defendant kept his left hand in his pocket for the rest of the interview. Defendant told Frost that he was at home, sick with the flu, for the past few days and did not answer the telephone. Defendant also said that although he had heard of Paul's death, he did not contact the family.

A search warrant was issued for defendant's house which was executed on April 10. Officer Terrence Conley testified that during the search he spoke with Marlene Harbold who told him she had noticed defendant's left hand was bandaged. She also told Conley that defendant told her he injured the web between the thumb and forefinger while he was cutting a door with a circular saw. The police recovered the saw and the door which appeared to have bloodstains on them, however, they did not find defendant's camel-colored sport coat.

Mohammed Tahir, a forensic scientist, examined the bloodstain on the circular saw and found there was no blood in the teeth of the saw. In his opinion, the blood came in contact with the saw when it was not moving and the stain was consistent with touching the saw with a bloody finger or hand. The blood on the saw was type O, the same as defendant's blood type.

Dr. Joseph Danna examined defendant on April 10 pursuant to a court order. Defendant had two cuts on his left hand: one was on the web between the thumb and forefinger and the other was on his thumb. The cuts were one to two weeks old and occurred from the same event. The web cut, which showed signs of infection, was two inches long and should have been sutured. In Danna's opinion, the cuts appeared to have been caused by a knife and could not have been caused by a circular saw.

Tim Klier, a bank employee, testified that he saw defendant in the bank on March 31, the day Paul was murdered, and he did not have cuts on his left hand. Photographs taken by the security camera in the bank supported this testimony.

The State rested its case against defendant. Defendant presented the following witnesses.

Robert Farrell, a retired police officer, assisted in the investigation of Paul's murder. He interviewed a friend of Paul's who stated that the police or the Federal Bureau of Investigation spoke with Paul about another man, also with the last name Paul, who was suspected of transporting stolen cars.

Walter Sherk, a forensic scientist, testified that the lock on Paul's office had been tampered with at some time but he could not determine if the tampering was successful.

Janet Cook, a former employee of Paul's business, testified that at 5:00 p.m., on the night Paul was murdered, she saw a man with curly blond hair sitting in a parked car behind the office.

Maria Raspanti, also a former employee, testified that she did not remember ever seeing a man by the name of Martin Paul or describing him to police. She also testified that two months before the murder The parties stipulated that Officer Frost would testify that Raspanti described Martin Paul to the police and told them that the police spoke with Frank Paul two months before his death about transporting stolen cars.

[163 Ill.Dec. 185] police officers came to the office and spoke with Paul but she did not know what the conversation was about. She did not remember receiving a telephone call two days later from Martin Paul for Frank Paul.

In closing argument, defense counsel argued that defendant had a friendly relationship with Paul and there was no evidence of a disagreement between them. Although he stated that motive was not required, he argued there was no evidence introduced to show why defendant would murder Paul.

In rebuttal, the assistant State's Attorney argued:

"And the defense has asked you about motive. Now, I told you right off from the start, we do not have to prove why he did it. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? I told you right from the start, all we have to do is...