People v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 26 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 58786,58786 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sylvester HENDERSON et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Werner E. Scholtz, Chicago, for defendant Sims.
Paul Bradley, First Deputy State Appellate Defender, Chicago (Robert E. Davison, Asst Appellate Defender, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant Henderson. Additional briefs, pro se.
Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Raymond J. Prosser, Larry L. Thompson, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
Defendants, Sylvester Henderson and James Sims, were each charged with the crimes of aggravated kidnapping (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 10--2), rape (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 11--1), deviate sexual assault (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38 par. 11--3), and two counts of armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 18--2). Defendants were tried by a jury and found guilty of aggravated kidnapping, rape, and both counts of armed robbery, but not guilty of deviate sexual assault. Both were given consecutive sentences of 15 to 45 years for the aggravated kidnapping, 20 to 60 years for the rape, 15 to 45 years for one count of armed robbery, and 10 to 30 years for the other count of armed robbery. Defendants now appeal. A summary of the evidence follows:
The complainant testified that, on December 4, 1971, she returned to her apartment at approximately 8:00 P.M. She had parked her car and was carrying two packages of 'sample diapers,' her purse, and other packages. As she was walking from her car, she felt someone pulling the purse off her arm and turned to face a man who put a gun to her head and ordered her to another car parked in the garage. The garage was illuminated by lights in the garage itself and street lights in the adjacent alley.
The complaint was ordered into the backseat of the car and, at that time, she observed another individual in the driver's seat. As she entered the car, she initially saw his profile, and at that moment, he turned around, afforing her an opportunity to see part of his face. The victim, still carrying her packages, was pushed to the floor of the backseat, landing on her back. The non-driver entered the backseat, lying on his stomach and facing the victim, and held a gun to her head. Complainant later identified defendant Sims as the non-driver, and defendant Henderson as the driver.
The car was then started up, with all occupants still in the same position. After a brief interval, the victim heard the driver say a policeman was following the car. They continued on for a short distance when the driver said he had to urinate, stopped the car, and got out. The non-driver told her that if she said anything or looked, he would kill her. The non-driver kept looking out the back window when he suddenly jumped out of the car, stepping on the victim as he did so. The complainant then heard scuffling sounds and shouts saying, 'Get him in the car, get him in the car.' Although she was apparently only a few feet from a melee, the victim could not see what was taking place outside the vehicle. Nor did she notice any of her packages fall from the car.
The non-driver then returned to the car and resumed his position on his stomach in the backseat. The car started up and she heard conversation between the two men such as: 'Get off the road; turn here; they've got your license number; can you make it.' The non-driver also told her: 'That copy (sic) was going to save your life but we took care of him.' As they continued driving, all three remained in their original positions with the non-driver passing various items taken from the victim, including her purse, to the driver. At one point while they were driving, the complainant saw the non-driver get up and point his gun out the window.
After the initial stop, the victim and her two abductors drove for approximately 20 more minutes. After stopping again, the non-driver led the victim into an abandoned apartment building. At this point, she did not know what happened to the driver. Once inside the building, the non-driver ordered her to undress. She complied except for her coat which she wore during the entire incident. The non-driver then held a gun to the victim's head and had intercourse with her during which she was able to see his face. She identified defendant Sims as her assailant. The second man now appeared and both led the victim to another room. At this time, she was unable to see the face of the second man because his back was turned to her, but she was able to observe that the second man was carrying a cane.
Once in the second room, the non-driver again had intercourse with the victim, and also forced her to perform acts of anal and oral copulation with him. The second man, whom she was now able to see and later identified as defendant Henderson, then had her perform all three acts with him. After this series of assaults, the complainant was told to dress and was led back to the car. She was pushed to the floor of of the backseat and a vest, which would remain covering her eyes until she was released, was put over her head. One of the men entered the backseat and the car started up.
After a short time, the car stopped and the man in the backseat (she was unable to identify him because of the vest covering her eyes) told the victim to undress. She was then forced to have intercourse and perform acts of oral and anal copulation with that individual. Afterwards, she was allowed to dress and the car started up again. After a short distance, the car stopped again. Complainant was led from the car, and told, 'Take the vest off of your head and don't turn around or I'll kill you.'
The victim stopped a bus which then stopped a squad car. She was eventually taken to a hospital where the presence of sperm in her vagina indicated that she had had sexual relations within the last eight hours.
Officer Frank Jasch of the Chicago Police Department testified that, at approximately 8:00 P.M. on December 4, 1971, he observed a "65 or '66 Pontiac' speeding and changing lanes on Lake Shore Drive. He was able to observe only one person, the driver, in the auto. He turned on his Mars light, and at one point, his siren, to pull the vehicle over.
After curbing the vehicle at approximately 1700 North Lake Shore Drive, Officer Jasch met the driver halfway between the two vehicles. Officer Jasch asked for and received the driver's license. For the next two or three minutes they discussed the violations and moved slowly toward the Pontiac. Officer Jasch recalled that the driver had a cast on one leg and carried a cane. He identified defendant Henderson as the driver.
While at the rear of Henderson's vehicle, Officer Jasch wrote 'DZ 6452, 7201 South Harvard, N. Carolina,' on the back of Henderson's driver's license. As he finished writing, the rear door of the car flew open and he observed a man in a prone position on the backseat of the car pointing a gun at him. This man said, 'Don't move, or I'll kill you.' The man got out of the car, put one hand around Jasch's throat, and put the gun to his head. As he got out of the car, Officer Jasch was able to observe his face and later identify him as defendant Sims. Although Jasch was very close to defendant's car, he did not see anyone else in the backseat.
Both defendants began moving Officer Jasch toward the police vehicle, and repeating, 'Get him in the car, get him in the car.' At this point, he felt his service revolver leave its holster and felt it placed in his side. The gun at his head was removed and a scuffle ensued. During the struggle, Officer Jasch was able to break away, run into the traffic on Lake Shore Drive, and hail a cab. He observed defendants' auto proceeding southbound on Lake Shore Drive.
Officer Jasch returned to the area of the fight and recovered a bag of diapers which he had seen fall out of defendants' vehicle. At trial, Officer Jasch identified a plastic bag of diapers as the same diapers he recovered that night. At trial, the victim also explained that the diapers were special test diapers not available on the market and, because of special design characteristics, she could identify the diapers as one of the packages she was carrying when she was abducted. Finally, Officer Jasch identified photos of defendant Henderson's car as the car he stopped the night of the armed robbery.
Mr. Julius Roth was driving southbound on Lake Shore Drive on December 4, 1971, some time after 8:00 P.M. At approximately 1700 North Lake Shore Drive, he noticed a police officer and two black males standing by the road next to a police car. As Mr. Roth approached, he saw the police officer 'throw up his hands . . . and . . . run across . . . into the traffic.' Mr. Roth later the saw same automobile that had been stopped next to the police car pull away from the side of the road and pass him. He saw two persons sitting in the car, one in the front and one in the back. When Mr. Roth attempted to move closer to that vehicle to 'identify the persons in the car,' the one in the back pointed a 'shiny object' at him and he ceased pursuit. Mr. Roth testified that the car involved in this incident was 'very similar' to two pictures of defendant Henderson's car.
At approximately 1:30 A.M. on December 6, 1971, Police Officer Golich was driving home in a private automobile with another police officer. At that time, he noticed a 1965 Pontiac with N. Carolina license plates which fitted the description of a vehicle listed as wanted in a police bulletin. They stopped and called for additional help and then followed the vehicle. As additional help arrived, the vehicle double parked and the sole occupant, the driver, exited the car and entered a tavern at 91st and Greenbay. As the driver walked to the tavern, Officer Golich noticed that the driver had a cast on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vaughn
......Neal, 37 Ill.App.3d 713, 346 N.E.2d 178 (1976) (the kidnapping conviction was proper where the victim was forcibly confined to the automobile for two and one-half hours before being raped); People v. Henderson, 36 Ill.App.3d 355, 344 N.E.2d 239 (1976) (a separate kidnapping conviction was valid where the victim was confined in a vehicle for at least an hour); People v. D'Angelo, 166 A.D.2d 662, 561 N.Y.S.2d 83 (1990) (the kidnapping and rape convictions were proper where the defendants drove the victim ......
-
People v. Winfield
......Rose (1979), 77 Ill.App.3d 330, 32 Ill.Dec. 700, 395 N.E.2d 1081), and the damaging effect of the evidence cannot be remedied by admonitions or instructions (People v. Henderson (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 355, 344 N.E.2d 239). . Here, the trial court found the statement improper and cautioned the witness not to repeat it. Defense counsel did not request that the jury be instructed to disregard it, and it is not argued that the damage could not have been ......
-
People v. Moore
......Brasfield (1966), 35 Ill.2d 560, 561, 221 N.E.2d 225, 227.) Minor conflicts between the witness' testimony at trial and at an earlier proceeding do not prove that the witness' testimony is perjured (People v. Lagios (1968), 39 Ill.2d 298, 301, 235 N.E.2d 587, 589; People v. Henderson (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 355, 384, 344 N.E.2d 239, 261) and as with conflicts among the testimony of different witnesses go merely to the credibility of the witness and of the evidence. (People v. Tyner (1968), 40 Ill.2d 1, 3, 238 N.E.2d 377, 378.) None of the discrepancies in testimony alleged by ......
-
People v. Hebein
......Douglas (1981), 100 Ill.App.3d 181, 55 Ill.Dec. 625, 426 N.E.2d 950), and declaration of a mistrial did not vitiate the effect of that ruling (People v. Henderson......