People v. Hines
| Decision Date | 26 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 78-1916,78-1921,s. 78-1916 |
| Citation | 50 Ill.Dec. 312,419 N.E.2d 420,94 Ill.App.3d 1041 |
| Parties | , 50 Ill.Dec. 312 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory HINES and Floyd Scott, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Ralph Ruebner, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Steven Clark, Chicago, for defendant-appellant Hines.
Lonny Ben Ogus, Chicago, for defendant-appellant Scott.
Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago, Marcia B. Orr, Pamela L. Gray, John M. Hynes, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellee.
At the conclusion of a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendants, Gregory Hines and Floyd Scott, were found guilty of rape (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 11-1) and armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 18-2). Hines was sentenced to a prison term of 8 to 15 years; Scott to a term of 10 to 15 years. Defendants brought separate appeals which have been consolidated here.
On appeal, Hines raises two issues: (1) whether his right to confront the witnesses against him was violated by the admission of a hearsay statement of one of the victims; and (2) whether his right to confront the witnesses against him was violated by the trial court's refusal to allow him to We affirm the convictions of both defendants.
[50 Ill.Dec. 314] cross-examine a State's witness to show the witness was a prostitute. Scott also raises the above issues and contends further: (1) his motion to suppress his arrest was improperly denied; (2) he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
The incident occurred at 2:30 a. m., May 30, 1977, in a high crime area along the 400 block of Central Avenue in Chicago just north of the intersection of Central Avenue and Lake Street. Central runs north and south, Lake east and west. The victims were a husband and wife. The wife testified at trial but the husband was not present to testify.
The wife testified she and her husband were walking along Central Avenue when they passed defendant Hines who was walking in the other direction. Just after passing Hines, the wife saw him put a gun up to her husband's back and say, "This is a stickup." Hines then forced them to walk down an alley running perpendicular to Central Avenue. Along the way, another man joined Hines and ordered them into another alley that ran parallel to Central Avenue. The wife was unable at this time to see the face of the other man because he stayed behind her out of her sight. The victims were forced to face a wall and then the two assailants proceeded to remove their jewelry and money. Among the items of jewelry taken were a watch and ring from the husband and two bracelets and a ring from the wife.
After taking the victim's valuables, the assailants ordered the victims to get into a hole that had been dug in the alley by a construction crew. At this point, the wife saw the other assailant for a brief moment but could only say that he was shorter than Hines and had "slicked-back" hair. (This description fit defendant Scott but, of course, is an insufficient identification, in and of itself, to prove Scott's involvement.) The victims were ordered to remove all their clothes, which they did. While Hines held the gun on the victims, the other assailant jumped into the hole and raped the wife. Though there were overhead lamps partially lighting the area, the wife did not see the face of the other assailant at this time because she kept her eyes closed during the rape.
While the above was going on, Debra Lowe and a woman friend were walking along Central Avenue. Lowe looked down a walkway separating two buildings on Central Avenue and saw Hines approximately thirty feet away in the alley holding the gun over the victims. Lowe summoned a nearby police car and told the two officers in the car what she had just seen. The police sped off and headed for the north entrance to the alley. As they did so, Lowe looked down the walkway again and saw defendant Scott come out of the hole. He ran south down the alley and Lowe saw him again as he was running across a parking lot next to a 24-hour restaurant called "Whoopies" located at the intersection of Central Avenue and Lake Street. Lowe then lost sight of him.
The two police officers entered the alley from the north and immediately encountered Hines heading towards them. They stopped the car, got out, and forced Hines to stop. Just then, the police officers saw the nude victims hurrying towards them. The husband immediately said that he had been robbed and his wife raped and that Hines was one of the assailants. The wife also said that Hines was one of the assailants. Hines was placed under arrest. The gun used in the crime was later found in the alley.
At the time Hines was being arrested, another police car with two officers, Robert Lawler and Jeffrey Zitzka, was proceeding along Lake Street near the intersection of Lake and Central. The driver, Lawler, suddenly saw a man in a green jacket running across a parking lot towards the intersection of Lake and Central. The man darted in front of the police car and Lawler slowed down to let him pass. Lawler saw the Later that morning, at the police station, both Hines and Scott were searched. The watch, two rings, and one of the bracelets taken from the victims were recovered from Hines. The other bracelet was recovered from Scott. Subsequently, a line-up was held. The wife identified Hines in the line-up but could not pick Scott out of the line-up.
[50 Ill.Dec. 315] man's face at this time and recognized him as defendant Scott. Just after Scott passed by, Lawler said to his partner, "What was that?" Zitzka, who had not been looking, asked Lawler what he meant. Lawler said he had just seen a man run in front of the car. Lawler proceeded along Lake Street but looked in his rear-view mirror and saw Scott approach the L-station at Lake and Central. He saw Scott turn the corner behind a building and then look back around the corner at the police car. Seconds later, a dispatch came over the radio saying that a robbery had just occurred in the 400 block of Central and one assailant was in custody. Lawler made a turn down another street and quickly returned to where he had last seen Scott. Lawler and Zitzka got out of the car and went in separate directions looking for Scott. Zitzka found Scott at the overhead L-station at Central and Lake hiding behind a wind screen. Scott was the only person at the station. Zitzka drew his weapon, announced his presence, and ordered Scott to come out from behind the wind screen. Scott did as ordered and Zitzka then put his weapon away and led Scott back to the police car where Lawler met them and identified Scott as the man he had seen run in front of the car. Zitzka then searched Scott for weapons but found no weapons. Scott was then placed in the police car and driven a half block to where Lawler and Zitzka saw a police officer standing with Lowe and her friend. After the three officers had a brief conversation, Lowe was asked to look inside the police car and upon doing so she identified Scott as one of the men she had seen committing the robbery. Scott was formally placed under arrest.
Medical evidence was introduced at trial to show that the wife had been raped. Scott's underwear was introduced and it was shown to have semen stains though it could not be proven that the stains were the result of the particular act of intercourse involved in the rape.
Defendant Hines testified in his own behalf. He claimed he was never identified by either of the victims when he was stopped in the alley by the police. He also claimed that at the time of the incident he had just gone into the alley to urinate and upon doing so he discovered the victims' valuables on the ground. He had just picked them up when the police arrived.
Defendant Scott also testified in his own behalf. He claimed that in the early evening of May 29, 1977, he had been with a woman friend at her apartment and they had engaged in sexual intercourse. Afterwards, at approximately 8 p. m. on May 29, he met his sister and a male friend of his sister. They spent the evening in a tavern located a few blocks from the scene of the incident. At approximately 2 a. m., May 30, the three of them went to the L-station at Lake and Central. While there, Scott's sister and her friend decided they wanted to eat something. They left and went to "Whoopies" restaurant and promised to bring Scott a sandwich when they returned. Shortly thereafter, Scott was arrested.
The woman friend with whom Scott had allegedly had sexual intercourse, Scott's sister, and his sister's friend, all testified on behalf of Scott and verified his testimony.
Following presentation of all evidence, the jury found both defendants guilty of rape and armed robbery.
OPINIONThe first two issues raised here concern the defendants' constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. (U.S.Const., amend. VI; Ill.Const.1970, art. I, § 8.) At trial, the hearsay statement of the husband-victim identifying Hines as one of the assailants was admitted under the spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule. Both defendants allege their constitutional rights were violated by the admission of this evidence. At trial, Debra Lowe was allowed to testify to what she had seen and said on the morning of the incident. Pursuant to a State's motion in limine, defendants were not allowed to question Lowe as to her occupation which, during the hearing on the motion in limine, she readily admitted was prostitution. Both defendants allege this restriction on the scope of their cross-examination violated their constitutional rights.
We consider first the admission of the hearsay declaration. We initially note that though both defendants raise the admission of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sykes
... ... 56, 63, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537, 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 606 (1980) ... When determining whether a denial of cross-examination violates the defendant's right of confrontation, we should look not to what defendant has been prohibited from doing, but to what he has been allowed to do. People v. Hines, 94 Ill. App.3d 1041, 1048, 50 Ill.Dec. 312, 419 N.E.2d 420 (1981) ... The issue under the confrontation clause is whether the jury has been made aware of adequate factors to determine whether the witness is worthy of belief, not whether any particular limitation has been placed on defendant's ... ...
-
People v. Harris
...to the record as a whole and the alternative means open to the defendant to impeach the witness. (See People v. Hines (1981), 94 Ill.App.3d 1041, 1048, 50 Ill.Dec. 312, 419 N.E.2d 420; see also United States ex rel. Blackwell v. Franzen (7th Cir.1982), 688 F.2d 496, 501.) Thus, if a review ......
-
People v. Averhart
...merely because defendant has been prohibited on cross-examination from pursuing other areas of inquiry. People v. Hines, 94 Ill. App.3d 1041, 1048, 50 Ill.Dec. 312, 419 N.E.2d 420 (1981). The theory of the defense in this case is that Officer Smith framed the defendant because of Smith's al......
-
People v. Edwards
...questioning. Rufus, 104 Ill.App.3d at 473-74, 60 Ill.Dec. at 196, 432 N.E.2d at 1095, quoting People v. Hines (1981), 94 Ill.App.3d 1041, 1048, 50 Ill.Dec. 312, 317-18, 419 N.E.2d 420, 425-26. The jury in the case at bar had sufficient information to make a discriminating appraisal of Mitch......