People v. Houser
| Citation | 2020 IL App (4th) 170799 -U |
| Decision Date | 07 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-17-0799,4-17-0799 |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORY J. HOUSER, Defendant-Appellant. |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Piatt County
Honorable Karle E. Koritz, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request to present evidence of an alternative suspect at trial where defendant failed to establish a sufficient link between the third party and the crimes committed against the victim.
¶ 2 Following a July 2017 jury trial, defendant, Gregory J. Houser, was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to 55 years' imprisonment for the unlawful killing of his estranged wife, Sheryl Houser, inside the Houser residence on or about October 4, 1990. Defendant appeals, arguing this court should reverse and remand for a new trial because the trial court deprived him of his right to present a complete defense when it precluded him from presenting evidence at trial showing another man had attacked and sexually assaulted a woman near the Houser residence prior to Sheryl's death. We affirm.
¶ 4 A. Information ¶ 5 In September 2016, the State charged defendant by information with four counts of first degree murder (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, para. 9-1(a)(1), (2), (3)). The State alleged defendant, on or about October 4, 1990, sexually assaulted and strangled Sheryl to death.
¶ 7 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to present evidence of an alternative suspect at trial. Defendant alleged a man who had attacked and sexually assaulted a woman near the Houser residence prior to Sheryl's death may have committed the alleged crimes against Sheryl given the similarities in the crimes committed. The State objected, contending any similarities in the crimes committed were insufficient to link them together to suggest a common perpetrator.
¶ 8 The following factual basis was presented to the trial court concerning the crimes committed in the prior case. During the early afternoon of July 18, 1989, an 18-year-old Caucasian woman who had brown hair and blue eyes, stood at 5'8'', and weighed 130 pounds, was outside jogging alone near the Houser residence, which was in a rural, low-crime area. A man appeared from behind the woman and began running alongside her. The man started a casual conversation with the woman. The woman recalled the man stating, Suddenly, the man grabbed the woman from behind and placed her in a choke hold, causing her to lose consciousness. When the woman woke, the man was gone. Further investigation revealed she had been the victim of a sexual assault. The sexual assault occurred 1.82 miles from the Houser residence "as a crow flies" or 2.4 miles from the Houser residence traveling by road. The man's semen was found on the woman.
¶ 9 The following factual basis was presented to the trial court concerning the crimes committed in the instant case. During the evening of October 4, 1990, Sheryl, a 29-year-oldCaucasian woman who had brown hair and blue eyes, stood at 5'6'', and weighed 120 pounds, was at home with her three young children. Early the next morning, Sheryl was found dead in the garage in what appeared to be a suicide. Upon further investigation, the evidence indicated the scene was staged and Sheryl had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death by someone's hands. A used condom was discovered at the scene. Blood from an unidentified male source was discovered on Sheryl's nightgown. The deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from the blood did not match the DNA from the semen found in the prior case.
¶ 10 Defendant argued the crimes committed in the prior case and the alleged crimes committed in the instant case were substantially similar to warrant the introduction of evidence of the prior case to suggest the perpetrator in that case may have committed the alleged crimes in the instant case. Specifically, defendant highlighted both cases involved victims of similar appearance being choked and sexually assaulted by a man in the same rural, low-crime area within a relatively short period of time. Defendant further asserted the perpetrator in both cases acted recklessly given the crimes occurred either during the day on a public way or at night when others were nearby.
¶ 11 The State argued the crimes committed in the prior case and the instant case were not substantially similar to warrant the introduction of evidence of the prior case to suggest the perpetrator in that case may have committed the alleged crimes in the instant case. The State highlighted, unlike the instant case where the perpetrator attempted to disguise himself by using a condom and staging the scene to look like a suicide, the perpetrator in the prior case did not make any attempts to conceal himself. The State further highlighted, unlike the instant case where the perpetrator strangled the victim by hand and used a condom, the perpetrator in the prior case subdued the victim by chokehold and did not use a condom. Finally, the State highlighted, unlike the instant case where the perpetrator acted at night when others were around, the perpetrator inthe prior case acted during the day when nobody was around.
¶ 12 After considering the factual bases concerning the crimes committed in both cases, as well as the arguments presented, the trial court denied defendant's motion in limine, finding any similarities in the crimes committed were insufficient to link them together to suggest a common perpetrator.
¶ 14 In a July 2017, the trial court conducted an eight-day jury trial. The following is gleaned from the evidence presented.
¶ 15 In 1983, defendant and Sheryl married. In 1990, the couple and their three young children lived in a home in a rural area on the border of Champaign and Piatt Counties. Sheryl worked as a nurse, and defendant worked as a mechanic and volunteer firefighter.
¶ 16 In July 1990, defendant filed for a divorce from Sheryl. Sheryl, thereafter, filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking a divorce from defendant.
¶ 17 On August 8, 1990, police officers responded to the marital home. Defendant reported an argument occurred between him and Sheryl concerning Sheryl seeing someone. Defendant stated he did not hit Sheryl he "just grabbed her arms." Sheryl reported defendant accused her of seeing someone and then grabbed her arms, held her down on the floor, and told her he would keep her there all night if he had to. Officers observed bruising to Sheryl's arm in the location where she reported being grabbed. Defendant was arrested for battery.
¶ 18 On August 20, 1990, the trial court found grounds for the divorce had been established and ordered a child custody assessment.
¶ 19 On August 28, 1990, Sheryl filed for an emergency order of protection and gave testimony at a hearing. Given the emergency nature of the hearing, defendant was not givenadvance notice of the hearing. Sheryl testified defendant forced her to have oral sex on threat of having the children taken away from her. Sheryl further testified the incident occurred while the children were present in the home. Based on the testimony presented, the trial court ordered defendant to refrain from harassing, interfering with the personal liberty, and intimidating or physically abusing Sheryl or any other family or household member.
¶ 20 On September 12, 1990, the trial court, with the agreement of the parties, entered a temporary custody order providing the children were to remain in the marital home and defendant and Sheryl were to alternate 3.5 days per week in the home. The case was then set for a hearing on permanent matters on October 29, 1990.
¶ 21 At some point when defendant and Sheryl were alternating occupancy of the marital home, defendant, with the assistance of two friends, spied on Sheryl from a cornfield when she was in the marital home at night. The men did so because defendant believed Sheryl was seeing someone.
¶ 22 On September 20, 1990, Sheryl received a phone call from defendant asking her to come to the marital home because of a sick child. Sheryl provided the following account at a later hearing as to what occurred after she went to the marital home that evening. After checking on the children, Sheryl had a conversation with defendant where he asked her to "come back to him." After she indicated the relationship was over and began to leave, defendant grabbed her, dragged her into a bedroom, pushed her onto a bed, restrained her with a nylon rope he used for hunting, and gagged her. Defendant specifically restrained Sheryl with the rope by wrapping it around her wrist, neck, and face. Defendant put his hand in Sheryl's vagina and his penis in her face, ordering her to "suck on it real hard or [she] would be in real trouble." When defendant eventually let Sheryl up, he ordered her to write on a piece of paper she consented to have sex with him. Sheryl attemptedto escape, at which time defendant grabbed her, pulled her back into the house, bent her over a couch, and attempted to get her to sign a blank piece of paper. Sheryl was eventually able to free herself and ran to the neighbor's house.
¶ 23 The neighbors allowed Sheryl inside their home and noticed abrasions and swelling to her lips, scratches and swelling to her eyes, marks on her neck, and bruises on her wrist and legs. Sheryl stated to her neighbors that defendant had tried to rape and strangle her. Police were called. Sheryl was upset and crying, making it difficult for her to speak to the police...
To continue reading
Request your trial