People v. Jordan
| Decision Date | 06 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-88-1207,2-88-1207 |
| Citation | 562 N.E.2d 1218,205 Ill.App.3d 116 |
| Parties | , 150 Ill.Dec. 415 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clayton JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
G. Joseph Weller, Deputy Defender, Kathleen J. Hamill (argued), Office of the State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for Clayton Jordan.
James E. Ryan, Du Page County State's Atty., Wheaton, William L. Browers, Deputy Director, Martin P. Moltz (argued), State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Elgin, for the People.
Defendant, Clayton Jordan, was charged by indictment with murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 9-1(a)(1)), aggravated criminal sexual assault (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 12-14(a)(2)), intimidation (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 12-6(a)(1)), and concealment of a homicidal death (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 9-3.1). Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of each offense and was sentenced to an extended term of 80 years' imprisonment for murder, 30 years for aggravated criminal sexual assault, and five years each for intimidation and concealment of a homicidal death, with each sentence to run concurrent to the murder sentence. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, defendant contends that his convictions should be reversed and a new trial ordered because of the trial court's ruling denying his motion in limine. The motion in limine attempted to prevent the State from informing the jury that one of its witnesses, Brian Telander, was currently employed as an associate circuit court judge. Defendant argues that the State improperly bolstered Telander's credibility by continually referring to him as "judge" during the direct examination and closing arguments. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Prior to trial, defendant's motion in limine attempted to prevent the State from informing the jury that Brian Telander was currently employed as a judge. In denying the motion, the trial court ruled that the jury could be informed as to Telander's current occupation, but cautioned the State not to "refer to him as Judge Telander in any manner or fashion."
The following facts can be summarized from the lengthy record on appeal. Cornell Finley, an 11-year-old boy, testified that he was a friend of the victim in this case, 11-year-old Taneka Jones. Cornell stated that on January 9, 1988, Taneka came over to the Finley apartment in Hinsdale around 6 p.m. and stayed with Cornell while both of their mothers went to Chicago. Shortly thereafter, defendant came to the apartment and Taneka let him in. Cornell and Taneka knew defendant because he lived in the same apartment complex as they did. Defendant played a video game with Taneka and then left the apartment, returning a short time later to get keys to his apartment. After receiving the keys, defendant again left the apartment. Cornell indicated that John Kines then came to the apartment, with defendant arriving shortly thereafter. Defendant talked to Kines and then left the apartment. Cornell stated that Kines then went into his mother's bedroom, and Cornell fell asleep on the sofa in the living room.
Cornell woke up later that night and saw defendant drag Taneka out of the living room and into his mother's bedroom. Cornell heard a bed squeaking and Taneka saying Cornell went to his mother's bedroom, looked inside, and saw Taneka on the bed with defendant on top of her "[m]oving up and down." Cornell went back to the living room, but returned to his mother's bedroom when the noise stopped. At this time, Cornell saw Taneka lying on the floor with a blanket wrapped around her. He also saw Kines "tightening something on her neck." Defendant, Kines, and Saul Berry then took Taneka out of the apartment and down into the basement of the building.
Cornell indicated that he followed the men into a storage area in the basement. He saw the three men standing in the basement but could only see Taneka's feet. Both Kines and Berry were laughing, and defendant was masturbating. Cornell returned to his apartment, and the three men arrived a short time later. All three men told Cornell that the same thing would happen to him and his mother if he said anything.
The following morning, Cornell's and Taneka's mothers returned to the apartment and began to search for Taneka. Shortly thereafter, Taneka's body was found, and the police were called. Cornell stated that he did not tell anyone what happened to Taneka because he was scared. It was not until six days after Taneka's murder that Cornell was able to tell the police what happened that night. Cornell also stated that he lied to Kines' attorneys a few months later because "they was there to get [Kines] out of jail."
Dr. Larry Blum, a forensic pathologist, testified that he performed an autopsy on Taneka Jones. It was his opinion that the cause of Taneka's death was ligature strangulation. He noted that death by ligature strangulation occurs when the blood flow to the brain ceases. In Taneka's case, he observed an abrasion one-half inch wide which went completely around her neck. A portion of Taneka's blouse, which was knotted in the front and "drawn up tight to the front of the neck," caused the abrasion.
Detective Warren Wilkosz of the Du Page County sheriff's department testified that he interviewed defendant on the day following the homicide. Initially, defendant stated that he was alone in his apartment for the entire previous night. Detective Wilkosz then read defendant his Miranda rights and informed defendant that he knew defendant was with Berry during the night. Defendant then stated that he was arrested that evening and was later released after posting a bond. Defendant admitted being in Cornell's apartment that night, but denied seeing Taneka or being in the basement storage area. Defendant then agreed to submit to hair, saliva and blood samples.
Brian Telander, an associate judge in Du Page County, testified that he was the chief of the criminal division of the Du Page County State's Attorney's office during the murder investigation. He indicated that he was informed of the homicide on January 10, 1988, and drove to the apartment complex in Hinsdale. Telander had conversations with several police officers and later saw Cornell, whom Telander described as nervous and afraid.
On January 13, 1988, Telander spoke to Cornell and learned that the crime may have occurred in Cornell's apartment. On January 15, 1988, Telander again spoke to Cornell at the State's Attorney's office. At this time, Cornell told Telander "what really happened," and search and arrest warrants were then issued. At approximately 11 p.m., defendant was placed under arrest. Around midnight, defendant was read his Miranda rights and indicated that he would speak to Telander. Defendant admitted that he had been in Cornell's apartment twice on the night in question, once to get his keys and the other time to play a video game with Taneka. He denied being in the apartment at any other time that night.
Telander then told defendant that he was not "being truthful," and defendant asked if Berry and Kines had been arrested yet. Telander answered in the affirmative, and defendant indicated that he would tell "what really happened." Defendant then stated that he and Berry went to Cornell's apartment, where Kines greeted them. A short time later, defendant saw Kines grab Taneka and take her into the bedroom. Defendant held Taneka's head and Kines removed her clothing. Defendant stated that he then "had sex with her" while Kines and Berry held her down. The three men then agreed to kill Taneka to keep her from identifying them. Kines picked up a shirt and proceeded to strangle her. They then took her body into the basement storage area, and defendant proceeded to masturbate over her body.
Defendant then told Telander that the three men returned to the apartment and told Cornell that the same thing would happen to Cornell and his mother if he said anything about what happened. The three men then discussed the crime and prepared and practiced a story in case the police questioned them.
Telander stated that he had defendant again recite what transpired to make sure that Telander's notes were accurate. The notes were typed in memorandum form two days later.
On cross-examination, Telander indicated that he did not ask defendant to sign the typed memoranda. In addition, Telander did not ask defendant to write out his own version of the events on the night in question.
Following Telander's testimony, the State rested. Defendant's motion for a directed verdict was denied, and he did not present any evidence at trial. Following closing arguments, the jury, after lengthy deliberations, found defendant guilty of each offense charged. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied, and he was sentenced to 80 years' imprisonment for murder, 30 years for aggravated criminal sexual assault, and 5 years each for intimidation and concealment of a homicidal death, with each sentence to run concurrently. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine seeking to prevent the State from informing the jury that Brian Telander was currently employed as a judge. Defendant argues that the only reason the State wanted to inform the jury as to Telander's occupation was to "qualify Telander as a sort of expert on credibility, coloring the jurors' perception both of what Telander himself had to say and of what Cornell Finley and [defendant] supposedly admitted to him."
A motion in limine is addressed to the trial court's inherent power to admit or exclude evidence. (People v. Escobar (1988), 168 Ill.App.3d 30, 43, 118 Ill.Dec. 736, 522 N.E.2d 191.) The court's decision to grant or deny the motion is within its discretion, and we will not reverse the decision on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Degorski, Docket No. 1–10–0580.
...we must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing McHale to testify that he is a judge. People v. Jordan, 205 Ill.App.3d 116, 150 Ill.Dec. 415, 562 N.E.2d 1218 (1990), is nearly identical to the instant case. There, Assistant State's Attorney Brian Telander interrogat......
-
People v. West, 2-90-0121
......Franklin (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 408, 415, 355 N.E.2d 634), and each case must be decided on its own facts. (People v. Bigsby (1977), 52 Ill.App.3d 277, 281, 9 Ill.Dec. 924, 367 N.E.2d 358.) Generally, a prosecutor is allowed great latitude in making a closing argument. (People v. Jordan (1990), 205 Ill.App.3d 116, 122, 150 Ill.Dec. 415, 562 N.E.2d 1218.) However, a prosecutor may not, inter alia, make arguments not based upon the evidence. (Witted, 79 Ill.App.3d at 165-66, 34 Ill.Dec. 393, 398 N.E.2d 68.) The entire context in which a prosecutor offers statements as well as ......
-
People v. Williams
......A court of review will not reverse a trial court's grant or denial of a motion in limine absent a clear abuse of discretion. People v. Holman, 257 Ill.App.3d 1031, 1033, 196 Ill.Dec. 457, 630 N.E.2d 154 (1994); People v. Jordan, 205 Ill.App.3d 116, 121, 150 Ill.Dec. 415, 562 N.E.2d 1218 (1990); People v. Escobar, 168 Ill.App.3d 30, 43, 118 Ill.Dec. 736, 522 N.E.2d 191 (1988); People v. Williams, 60 Ill.App.3d 529, 532-33, 18 Ill.Dec. 214, 377 N.E.2d 367 (1978); see, e.g., People v. Eddington, 77 Ill.2d 41, 44-47, 31 ......
-
People v. Edwards
...... People v. Hudson, 157 Ill.2d 401, 441, 193 Ill.Dec. 128, 626 N.E.2d 161 (1993). In reviewing allegations of error in closing argument, this court must examine in their entirety the arguments of the prosecution and defense to place the comments at issue in the proper context. People v. Jordan, 205 Ill.App.3d 116, 122, 150 Ill.Dec. 415, 562 N.E.2d 1218 (1990). Comments made by prosecutors on rebuttal will not be considered improper if they appear to have been provoked or invited . Page 996 . [235 Ill.Dec. 423] by defense counsel's argument. People v. Johnson, 254 Ill.App.3d 74, 83, ......