People v. Haynes

Decision Date21 August 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-666,79-666
Parties, 44 Ill.Dec. 510 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Archie HAYNES, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Sam Adam, Marvin I. Bloom, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Bernard Carey, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Richard F. Burke, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

JOHNSON, Justice:

Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of murder and burglary and sentenced to concurrent terms of 40 years for murder and 15 years for burglary. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, pars. 9-1, 19-1.) On appeal, defendant contends (1) his post-arrest statements were improperly admitted into evidence since there was no probable cause for his arrest which was also illegal because he was arrested in his home without an arrest warrant; and (2) he was deprived of a parent's advice during his interrogation, thus rendering his statement inadmissible.

Prior to trial, defendant filed a written motion to suppress evidence alleging that on July 16, 1976, police officers, who did not have either an arrest warrant or a search warrant arrested him at his home at 8354 South Paxton, in Chicago. This arrest occurred after the police told his mother that they merely wanted to talk to him and would do so outside in the police car. However, defendant claimed that the officers drove him to a police station; that the arresting officers did not notify his mother, who was the only adult home, where he was being taken; that his mother spent most of the morning of July 16, 1976, attempting to locate defendant and did not locate him until approximately 4 p. m. that day; that at the time of his arrest, defendant was not violating any law, and the arresting officers did not have any reasonable belief that a warrant had in fact been issued and was outstanding for defendant's arrest and did not have probable cause to arrest him; and that this was in violation of Illinois statutes, including section 3-2 of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 37, par. 703-2) which provides that a law enforcement officer who takes a minor into custody shall immediately make a reasonable attempt to notify his parent or other person responsible for his care that the minor has been taken into custody and where he is being held.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Chicago Police Officer Nealis testified that, when he arrested defendant, he did not have a warrant for defendant's arrest, there was no warrant in existence, to his knowledge, and defendant did not appear to be fleeing when arrested.

However, prior to the arrest Officer Nealis had talked with Officers Tosello and Swick, who had told him that they had spoken to an 11-year-old boy named Ernest Williams. The latter claimed he lived in defendant's neighborhood and that Newgene Anderson had been involved in or spoke of a burglary or a crime or theft some months earlier wherein $60 and an antique watch had been taken from this old woman's house. In checking through the burglary case reports, he found that a woman had reported a burglary of her home and sustained a loss of $60 and an antique watch. Upon inquiring to the Youth Division, he found out that a juvenile warrant had been issued for Anderson's arrest.

Officer Nealis arrested Anderson at his residence between 6:30 and 7 a. m. on July 16, 1976. Officer Nealis stated that Anderson denied committing the offense involved in this case but stated that a friend of his had committed it, and had told him about it. Anderson said that defendant had entered the home of Alfhild Heil and "gotten the old white lady down the street"; that he had confronted her in the home; that he had placed a pillow over her head; and that he had beaten her. Officer Nealis was also informed by Anderson that defendant admitted that he had taken a purse from the victim's home, and he showed Anderson the contents of this purse which contained money. Officer Nealis explained that he then questioned Anderson about particular matters concerning the home invasion and Anderson said defendant indicated he had gone in the back window, down the stairs and through the pantry. Officer Nealis, who visited at the crime scene, reviewed reports of other officers concerning the matter and had spoken with other investigators working on the case, believed Anderson's information corresponded to what the police had "surmised" from an investigation concerning how the perpetrators of the crime in fact entered the victim's residence. Officer Nealis, who had not previously known Anderson or had information provided by Anderson, went to defendant's home, but he did not attempt to secure an arrest warrant.

Officer Nealis then testified he arrested defendant at his home shortly before 9 a. m. on July 16, 1976. Also present at the time were investigators John Yucaitis, David Dioguardi and Alice McCree. He spoke to a woman, who identified herself as defendant's mother, and informed her that her son had been implicated in a crime and that they were going to take him to a police station located at 9059 South Cottage Grove Avenue. The officer gave defendant's mother a business card with his name printed on it, the telephone numbers of the officer and the address. He also wrote the name of his partner, Officer Yucaitis, on the business card. He denied telling defendant's mother that he merely wanted to talk to her son and would do so outside in the police car, or that he gave her the impression that he was not taking defendant to the police station. He then proceeded with defendant in custody to 9059 South Cottage Grove Avenue, the Area 2 homicide office.

At approximately 9 a. m. with Youth Officer Matthews present, Officer Nealis had a conversation with defendant for 15 or 20 minutes. He first advised defendant of his Miranda warnings and that anything he might say could be used against him not only in a juvenile proceeding but at criminal court in a possible adult proceeding; defendant stated he understood. He also informed defendant that the officers had learned from Newgene Anderson, whom defendant admitted he knew, that defendant was implicated in the death of Alfhild Heil, a 75-year-old female, and asked defendant if he knew this woman.

Defendant stated that he did. Officer Nealis was also present during an interview that took place at noon that same day. Also present at that time were Officer Matthews, Assistant State's Attorney Ed Vienuzis and a court reporter, Jim Cronin. Defendant gave a written confession at that time to the murder and burglary.

Assistant State's Attorney Edward Vienuzis testified that on July 16, 1976, he spoke with Officers Yucaitis and Nealis concerning an ongoing investigation of a homicide that had occurred on July 14, 1976, at 8425 South Paxton Avenue. He spoke to defendant at approximately 11 a. m. for 20 minutes; Youth Officers Matthews and Pittocora were present. He advised defendant of his constitutional rights and had a subsequent interview at approximately noontime with a court reporter present. Present at this time were Officers Nealis and Matthews and the court reporter.

Richard Matthews testified he is a Chicago Police Department youth officer. On July 16, 1976, he arrived at work at approximately 8 a. m. Shortly thereafter, he was told to go upstairs because there was a murder investigation going on. Officers Nealis and Yucaitis had 2 juveniles in custody. One of these was defendant, who was alone at that time. At approximately 9 or 9:15 a. m. he was present during a conversation in which Officer Nealis asked defendant questions. He heard Officer Nealis advise defendant of his rights under Miranda and his "juvenile rights" before he was questioned. Later, he was present when Assistant State's Attorney Vienuzis interviewed defendant at 10:30 or 11 a. m. This took 15 or 20 minutes. At approximately noon, he was again present with Officer Nealis and a court reporter when Vienuzis took a written statement. Vienuzis then went into the room with defendant, read him the typed statement and asked defendant if it was correct. He saw defendant make some corrections and initial each correction with a pen before signing the statement. At no time did defendant ask to see either of his parents. On cross-examination, he testified he was told to go upstairs at 8:10 or 8:15 and he went up immediately. When he arrived upstairs, defendant was already there.

Johnnie Haynes, defendant's mother, testified that on July 16, 1976, her husband left for work at approximately 4 a. m. About 5:10 a. m., 2 detectives came in. They did not give their names, but said they were detectives and wanted to see the 16-year-old defendant who was in bed. She then sent her grandson upstairs to bring defendant down. One officer then told defendant he wanted to talk to him outside and ask him some questions. After defendant went to the bathroom, he came back and went out the door with the police officers. Subsequently, she called the nearest police station, at 88th and Exchange, which is approximately one mile away, because no officer ever called to tell her where defendant was. She kept calling the police station, but the police told her they did not have defendant at that station. She testified that she made about one dozen calls but could not reach defendant. She went to the Main Post Office, where her husband worked, about 2 p. m. and told him what had happened. They both went to the police station on Cottage Grove where the police told her husband defendant was upstairs.

On cross-examination, she testified that Officer Matthews was one of the officers who came to her house. She denied that she opened the door for the police officers. Rather her 14-year-old daughter went to the door and she accompanied her. Her daughter then opened the door. She also stated that s...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Shelby
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 8, 1991
    ...269, 455 N.E.2d 542; People v. Thompson (1981), 93 Ill.App.3d 995, 49 Ill.Dec. 468, 418 N.E.2d 112; People v. Haynes (1980), 89 Ill.App.3d 231, 44 Ill.Dec. 510, 411 N.E.2d 876.) In each of those cases, however, there were additional circumstances which necessitated and justified the prompt ......
  • Byrd v. State, 62545
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1985
    ...661 F.2d 45 (5th Cir.1981); People v. Morgan, 113 Ill.App.3d 543, 69 Ill.Dec. 590, 447 N.E.2d 1025 (1983); People v. Haynes, 89 Ill.App.3d 231, 44 Ill.Dec. 510, 411 N.E.2d 876 (1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 907, 101 S.Ct. 3034, 69 L.Ed.2d 408 (1981); State v. Patricelli, 324 N.W.2d 351 (Min......
  • Willis, In Interest of
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 7, 1980
    ...respondent was arrested within three hours of Bobbie Driskel's statements implicating him. (People v. Haynes, Docket No. 79-666, August 21, 1980, --- Ill.App.3d ---, --- Ill.Dec. ---, 411 N.E.2d 876.) Finally, the need for prompt action was further made apparent by the belief that responden......
  • People v. Clements
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 26, 1985
    ...violation of the statute is a factor to be considered in determining the voluntariness of the confession. (People v. Haynes (1980), 89 Ill.App.3d 231, 44 Ill.Dec. 510, 411 N.E.2d 876; In re Stiff (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 971, 336 N.E.2d 619.) Here, the record shows that defendant resided with ......
  • 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