People v. Jones

Citation219 Ill.2d 1,845 N.E.2d 598
Decision Date20 January 2006
Docket NumberNo. 90282.,90282.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Robert D. JONES, Appellant.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Charles M. Schiedel, Deputy Defender, and Allen H. Andrews, Assistant Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for appellant.

James E. Ryan and Lisa Madigan, Attorneys General, and Patrick Kelley, State's Attorney, Springfield (Joel D. Bertocchi

and Gary Feinerman, Solicitors General, and William L. Browers, Colleen M. Griffin and Linda Woloshin, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice FITZGERALD delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion:

This appeal arises from the second trial of defendant, Robert D. Jones, for the murder of Dr. Henry Dickerman, Jr. Defendant was charged and later found guilty of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1 (West 1996)) following a jury trial in 1996 in the circuit court of Sangamon County. Defendant appealed, and the appellate court remanded for a new trial. People v. Jones, 294 Ill.App.3d 1125, 242 Ill.Dec. 584, 721 N.E.2d 863 (1998) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). On remand, following a second jury trial, defendant was again found guilty of first degree murder. Defendant appealed, and the appellate court affirmed, with one justice dissenting. 315 Ill.App.3d 500, 248 Ill.Dec. 499, 734 N.E.2d 207.

Defendant appealed to this court, arguing that (1) the trial court improperly ruled on a motion for substitution of judge; (2) the trial court failed to bar statements made during the course of plea negotiations; (3) the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary man-slaughter; (4) the State failed to prove a material element of the crime — namely, venue; (5) the trial court improperly allowed the State to amend the charges against him; and (6) Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), required that his conviction be overturned.

On September 20, 2001, we filed an opinion reversing the trial court and the appellate court with respect to the first issue; we remanded to the trial court for a hearing on defendant's motion for substitution of judge for cause. People v. Jones, 197 Ill.2d 346, 258 Ill.Dec. 775, 757 N.E.2d 464 (2001). We did not reach the other issues raised in defendant's appeal. We retained jurisdiction and directed that the trial court report its findings, after hearing defendant's substitution motion, to the clerk of this court within 90 days of the issuance of the mandate. We have been advised that the trial court has conducted a hearing on defendant's motion, has concluded that no cause exists to support a substitution of judge, and has denied defendant's motion. We granted defendant leave to supplement his brief on this issue. In his supplemental brief, defendant maintains that cause exists to support his motion for substitution of judge. We now address defendant's arguments on appeal.

BACKGROUND

Defendant was first convicted of the first degree murder of Dr. Dickerman after a jury trial in August 1996 and was sentenced to 85 years' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence a written statement he made to the police on August 15, 1994. Particularly, on August 15, 1994, police detectives visited with defendant while he was incarcerated. Defendant, as directed by the detectives, hand drafted a two-page statement providing the terms of the deal he would be willing to accept in order to plead guilty. The detectives informed defendant that the statement was for the State's Attorney. This statement was read into evidence at trial. The appellate court agreed that the statement contained the "rudiments of the negotiation process" and, therefore, was an inadmissible plea-related statement under Rule 402(f) (177 Ill.2d R. 402(f)). The appellate court reversed defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial. People v. Jones, 294 Ill.App.3d 1125, 242 Ill.Dec. 584, 721 N.E.2d 863 (1998) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

On remand, prior to the start of the new trial, defendant filed a motion for automatic substitution of judge pursuant to section 114-5(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/114-5(a) (West 1998)). The trial judge denied the motion as untimely. Subsequently, defendant filed a motion for substitution of judge for cause pursuant to section 114-5(d) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/114-5(d) (West 1998)). Defendant argued that Judge Zappa, the original trial judge and trial judge on remand, was prejudiced against him, and that this prejudice was evident in his pretrial rulings during the first trial and his comments during sentencing. Judge Zappa heard the motion, and denied the motion as untimely.

Defendant then filed a motion to suppress statements he made to the police on July 27, 1994, and August 16, 1994. The trial judge denied the motion on the basis that the statements were admitted against defendant in the first trial and defendant failed to challenge the admissibility of those statements on appeal. He held that defendant's failure to challenge the statements precluded a later challenge on remand. The matter proceeded to trial a second time, and the record reveals the following.

In June 1992, defendant approached Dr. Dickerman, a single 85-year-old man and retired surgeon, with a proposal to paint his house and do various minor repairs. Dr. Dickerman agreed, hired defendant, and paid a sum up front with a remainder to be paid at the completion of the work. Ultimately, the scope of defendant's duties expanded, and he worked as a handyman for Dr. Dickerman doing various repair work as it was needed.

At approximately the same time, in July 1992, for a period of six weeks, defendant additionally worked for Tri-State Foods. When he began as an employee for Tri-State, defendant informed the manager that he would do additional work if the manager advanced him money to buy the necessary supplies to complete the job. The manager agreed and advanced defendant money. Defendant failed to repay the money by the end of July, as agreed, and he was contacted by an attorney. On August 4, defendant delivered part of the money he owed, $850, in cash to the manager with a promise to repay the remainder shortly.

On August 11, 1992, Dr. Dickerman arrived at the Department of Rehabilitation Services, where he worked as a consultant reviewing federal disability claims. Individuals in the office testified that Dr. Dickerman seemed himself and appeared in good health. Dr. Dickerman then met several friends for lunch, and each of those who attended lunch testified that he was in good spirits and appeared to be in good health. The lunch ended at 1:15 p.m.

Charles Rutschke, a United States Postal Service worker, testified that on August 11 he delivered the mail to Dr. Dickerman's house at approximately 4 p.m. Rutschke recalled that the house had a front-door mail slot. While delivering mail on August 11, he was greeted halfway up Dr. Dickerman's walkway by defendant. Rutschke stated that defendant appeared anxious. Defendant asked whether there was any mail for Dr. Dickerman. Rutschke testified that he refused to give defendant the mail and instead placed the mail into the front-door mail slot.

On August 12, 1992, Dr. Dickerman failed to appear at his weekly Wednesday evening bridge game. Concerned friends went to his home to check on him. Upon their initial search of the home everything appeared normal, except that Dr. Dickerman's 1988 Buick Century was not parked in the garage. The police released a description of Dr. Dickerman and his car.

Soon afterwards the police discovered that several of Dr. Dickerman's checks were missing from his checkbook, and that defendant had deposited three checks on August 4, 7, and 8 totaling $5,025 against Dr. Dickerman's account. The police attempted to contact defendant at the address and the telephone number listed on the back of the cashed checks. Detectives left messages on the answering machine at the listed number and later learned that the number was registered to defendant's mother-in-law. Defendant was informed by his mother-in-law that the police were looking for him, and he immediately left the state. Defendant's wife eventually delivered a handwritten note from defendant addressed to the deputy chief of investigations in Sangamon County. The note stated:

"I, Robert Jones, would like to make this statement to assist you in effort to locate Mr. Dickerman. The last time I seen him was on Tuesday afternoon, He left his house at about 4:00 p.m. and said he was going to a dinner with his friends. I did not leave his house until around 4:30 p.m. because I was finishing an interior painting job.

Any checks I received from Mr. Dickerman were written from him to me. I have no idea about the numbers of these checks, I did not pay attention to that. I can tell you that I had nothing to do with his disappearance.

I have had some trouble in the past, but I have tried to put my life on the right track and anyone who knows me as a person knows I could never harm a fly.

* * *

I am not trying to avoid you because I miss my family, but I've been beat up by the system before. Believe me, I will assist you in any way I can to help bring an end of this nightmare that is happening to me all over again.

I hope Mr. Dickerman comes home soon for all of our sakes.

Thank you, Robbie Jones."

A crime scene investigator with the Illinois State Police testified that on September 1, 1992, while Dr. Dickerman was still "missing," he searched his house. The crime scene investigator discovered blood spatters on the bathroom wall, windowsill, and rug. He returned on September 2, 1992, and discovered additional blood spatters he had previously missed. Investigators could not determine when the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
146 cases
  • Calabro v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 18, 2008
    ...current rule or the current federal rule. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 491 A.2d 1129, 1132 (Del. 1985); People v. Jones, 219 Ill.2d 1, 300 Ill.Dec. 709, 845 N.E.2d 598, 610-11 (2006); State v. Little, 527 A.2d 754, 756 (Me. 1987); People v. Oliver, 111 Mich.App. 734, 756-57, 314 N.W.2d 740......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 30, 2018
    ...such that involuntary manslaughter requires a less culpable mental state than first degree murder." People v. Jones , 219 Ill. 2d 1, 31, 300 Ill.Dec. 709, 845 N.E.2d 598 (2006). A defendant commits first degree murder when "he kills an individual without lawful justification and he knows th......
  • People v. Zirko
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 21, 2012
    ...to give a jury instruction, the reviewing court applies the abuse of discretion standard of review. People v. Jones, 219 Ill.2d 1, 31, 300 Ill.Dec. 709, 845 N.E.2d 598, 614 (2006). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is “fanciful, arbitrary, or unreasonable to the degree t......
  • People v. Daniel
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 22, 2014
    ...where the jury failed to find that the sentence-enhancing factor existed beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v. Jones, 219 Ill.2d 1, 35–36, 300 Ill.Dec. 709, 845 N.E.2d 598 (2006) (“fact that increased [defendant's] imprisonment, the age of the victim, was not alleged in the charging inst......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...v. Jones , 173 Ill App 3d 147, 527 NE2d 441 (1988), §§19:40, 21:90 People v. Jones , 214 Ill 2d 187 (2005), §18:20 People v. Jones , 219 Ill 2d 1 (2006), §20:60 People v. Jones , 223 Ill 2d 569, 861 NE2d 967 (2006), §18:60 People v. Jones , 364 Ill App 3d 740 (2006), §3:100 People v. Jones ......
  • Judicial Conduct
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...set forth more of record than was necessary to justify the physical restraints and security measures that he utilized. People v. Jones , 219 Ill 2d 1, 845 NE2d 598 (2006). On remand of case for retrial, trial judge’s refusal to grant defendant’s motion for substitution of judge for actual c......

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