People v. Higgins
| Decision Date | 03 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1455,76-1455 |
| Citation | 390 N.E.2d 340,28 Ill.Dec. 173,71 Ill.App.3d 912 |
| Parties | , 28 Ill.Dec. 173 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald HIGGINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago, Lee T. Hettinger, Iris E. Sholder, Mary Ellen Cagney, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellee.
At the conclusion of a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant, Donald Higgins, was found guilty of armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 18-2) and aggravated battery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 12-4). He was sentenced to a term of 7 to 21 years for armed robbery and to a term of 2 to 6 years for aggravated battery, the sentences to run concurrently.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to consolidate three separate indictments for a single jury trial; (2) the trial court erred in restricting the examination of three defense witnesses; (3) the State committed prejudicial error when it failed to comply with the discovery requirements of Supreme Court Rule 412(a)(vi) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 110A, par. 412(a)(vi); (4) the State committed prejudicial error when it elicited from defendant on cross-examination the fact that a potential defense witness was in jail at the time of trial; (5) the trial court compounded the previous error when it refused to allow defendant to disclose the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the potential defense witness; and (6) the defendant was improperly convicted We affirm the trial court.
[28 Ill.Dec. 176] for both aggravated battery and armed robbery.
Three separate indictments charged the defendant with robbing employees of the Irving Hotel on August 28, September 1, and September 28, 1974, while armed with a dangerous weapon. Although the record is not entirely clear as to the substance of all three indictments, it does disclose the following:
1st Indictment
-------------------
Charge: Armed Robbery
Offenders: Defendant & Larry Thompson
Place: Irving Hotel
Date: August 28, 1974
Victim: Desk clerk Lonnie Sartin
Eyewitnesses: None
2nd Indictment
-------------------
Charge: Armed Robbery
Offenders: Defendant & Larry Thompson
Place: Irving Hotel
Date: September 1, 1974
Victim: Desk clerk Lonnie Sartin
Eyewitness: Gussie Sanders
3rd Indictment
-------------------
Charges: Armed Robbery & Aggravated
Battery
Offender: Defendant
Place: Irving Hotel
Date: September 28, 1974
Victim: Desk clerk Mattie Johnson
Eyewitness: Gussie Sanders
Defendant presented to the trial court an oral motion to consolidate all three indictments for a single jury trial. In support of this motion, defendant's attorney stated:
Defendant's attorney chose not to reveal the nature of the alleged defense which was similar to all three indictments. The only explanation offered was that "the defense would basically be the witnesses are lying for a reason."
In its response to defendant's motion for consolidation, the State argued: (1) that each armed robbery was a separate and distinct offense; and (2) that there was nothing to indicate a continuous course of conduct was involved. Following arguments of counsel, the trial court denied defendant's motion for consolidation. The State then elected to prosecute the defendant on the third indictment, which involved the September 28, 1974 armed robbery and aggravated battery charges.
In its discovery motion, the defense requested that the State disclose any prior criminal convictions "of those persons it intends to call as witnesses at trial." Prior to selection of the jury, the defense asked the State for its answer to discovery. The State informed the trial court and the defense that the discovery answer was being typed up and would be available as soon as it was completed. 1
Defense counsel then explained to the trial court why he had requested the criminal histories of the State's witnesses:
The trial court responded by stating:
"As soon as the witnesses are available I would be glad, on the record or provide you with the time to do so off the record, to inquire of each witness whether or not they have a criminal record.
You may also obtain their address, social security number and any other identifying information to assist you in that way.
Mr. Goldberg: Thank you."
At trial, Gussie Sanders testified that in September 1974 she worked as a maid in the Irving Hotel at 5615 South Prairie Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. On September 28, 1974, at approximately 1:45 a. m., Ms. Sanders was on duty and was standing in the hotel lobby. Mattie Johnson, the hotel desk clerk, was working in a nearby office.
A man, later identified as the defendant, appeared outside the glass lobby door with a gun wrapped in a suede coat. Defendant ordered Ms. Sanders to open the door. When she refused, the defendant kicked the door and broke the glass.
Ms. Sanders ran into the hotel office, slammed the door and held it shut while Ms. Johnson phoned the police. Defendant kicked the office door open, rushed in and with his gun struck Ms. Johnson above the left eye, knocking her to the floor. Defendant asked Ms. Johnson "for the key so he could get the money." Ms. Johnson responded: "(T)he key is hanging on the rack." Defendant grabbed the key, unlocked a drawer and "got the money out." After ordering Ms. Sanders and Ms. Johnson to lie flat on the floor for five minutes, defendant walked out the door.
Ms. Sanders testified that the defendant had been a tenant in the Irving Hotel six weeks prior to the robbery. She knew the defendant by two names, Donald Higgins and Donald Jackson. When police arrived shortly after the robbery, Ms. Sanders informed them that Donald Higgins, the defendant, had robbed Ms. Johnson. Later that same morning, at approximately 5 a. m., the police returned to the hotel with the defendant in their custody. Ms. Sanders identified him as the robber. Ms. Sanders also identified the defendant at a subsequent lineup and at trial.
On cross-examination, Ms. Sanders testified that she knew Lonnie Sartin, a desk clerk at the Irving Hotel. Ms. Sanders stated further that she had previously identified the defendant as robbing the Irving Hotel and Lonnie Sartin on September 1, 1974. Ms. Sanders also was aware that Lonnie Sartin had accused the defendant of robbing the hotel on August 28, 1974. Finally, Ms. Sanders denied any knowledge about alleged prostitution in the hotel.
Prior to the start of the second day of trial, the State was given leave to amend its list of witnesses to include the name of Billy Wright.
Defense counsel then informed the trial court that he was having a problem obtaining the criminal records of the State's witnesses.
The State called as its next witness, Mattie Johnson. Before her substantive testimony was taken, the trial court, outside the presence of the jury, elicited from Ms. Johnson her social security number and birthdate. This information was obtained in order to facilitate the defense's effort to acquire Ms. Johnson's criminal record.
Ms. Johnson testified that on September 24, 1978, at approximately 1:45 a. m., she was on duty as a desk clerk at the Irving The intruder eventually kicked the door open and entered the office. He struck Ms. Johnson above the left eye and ordered her to lay face down on the floor. The intruder accompanied his order with the following warning: "(B) itch, if you move I am going to blow your damn brains out." He was carrying a sawed off shotgun.
[28 Ill.Dec. 178] Hotel. Ms. Johnson stated that while she was sitting in the office writing, Ms. Sanders, the hotel maid, was standing nearby in the lobby. Ms. Johnson heard a man order Ms. Sanders to "open the lobby...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Liner
...of similar evidence. People v. Manning, 182 Ill.2d 193, 216, 230 Ill.Dec. 933, 695 N.E.2d 423 (1998); People v. Higgins, 71 Ill.App.3d 912, 931, 28 Ill.Dec. 173, 390 N.E.2d 340 (1979). Where the door to a subject is opened by the defense on cross-examination, the State may, on redirect, que......
-
People v. Campbell
...1206.) Additionally, we note that where inadmissible evidence is received, the defendant may be permitted (People v. Higgins (1979), 71 Ill.App.3d 912, 28 Ill.Dec. 173, 390 N.E.2d 340)--as he was here--to introduce similarly inadmissible evidence under the concept of curative admissibility ......
-
People v. Patterson
...evidence offered by opposing party); Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Bundy (1904), 210 Ill. 39, 71 N.E. 28; People v. Higgins (1979), 71 Ill.App.3d 912, 931, 28 Ill.Dec. 173, 390 N.E.2d 340 (holding curative admissibility doctrine is not intended to operate so as to permit a party to introduce irre......
-
People v. Manning
...in original.)" People v. Chambers, 179 Ill.App.3d 565, 581, 128 Ill.Dec. 372, 534 N.E.2d 554 (1989), quoting Higgins, 71 Ill.App.3d at 931, 28 Ill.Dec. 173, 390 N.E.2d 340. The record shows that, at trial, neither the prosecution nor the trial court indicated how defense counsel's cross-exa......