People v. Landwer
| Citation | 655 N.E.2d 848,211 Ill.Dec. 465,166 Ill.2d 475 |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 76837,76837 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Parties | , 211 Ill.Dec. 465 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Charles LANDWER, Appellee. |
Roland W. Burris, Attorney General, Springfield, and James E. Ryan, State's Attorney, Wheaton (Norbert J. Goetten, William L. Browers and Mary Beth Burns, of the Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Elgin, of counsel), for the People.
G. Joseph Weller, Deputy Defender, and Paul J. Glaser, Assistant Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for appellee.
Defendant owned an automobile repair business. Defendant was convicted of soliciting the murder of two of his former employees, Aric Cherim and James Haliotis. As part of his duties, Cherim assisted the defendant in "repossessing" cars. Cherim became convinced that the repossessions were actually thefts and reported the activities to the Du Page County State's Attorney's office. The Du Page County State's Attorney's office conducted an investigation that culminated in a 36-count indictment charging the defendant with various automobile offenses.
Upon learning that Cherim had spoken to the State's Attorney's office, defendant testified, he decided to attempt to silence Cherim in order to prevent his further cooperation with the investigation. Also at this time, defendant apparently became angry with Haliotis for allegedly stealing tools from defendant's shop and sending defendant threatening letters. Defendant admitted that he talked with a man known as "Barbecue Jerry" about securing someone to frighten or injure Cherim.
The State's Attorney's office became aware of defendant's plans from Chris Bowden. Chris Bowden also worked with defendant repossessing cars. Bowden testified that after defendant was arrested in connection with the car thefts, defendant asked Bowden whether he "had a problem with Aric [Cherim] being taken out." At that time, Bowden told defendant that he did not want to talk about the subject. Further, Bowden testified that several days later defendant again brought up Cherim and expressed his intention to "get him." As a result of these and other comments, Bowden became frightened and contacted the Du Page County State's Attorney's office.
Defendant continued to make threats concerning Cherim in Bowden's presence. Bowden testified that defendant told him that Cherim "was a dead man, just like anybody else who talks." Defendant told Bowden that he had some friends "working on it, and when Aric isn't looking over his shoulder, he is going to hit him." Defendant further asked Bowden to befriend Cherim so that the police would not suspect Bowden if Cherim "had an accident." Bowden subsequently consented to assist in eavesdropping of phone calls with the defendant.
Lori Chassee from the Du Page County State's Attorney's office secured an eavesdropping order. Chassee then assisted Bowden in tape recording a series of telephone calls that Bowden made to defendant. During an initial tape-recorded conversation, defendant referred to a man known as "Barbecue Jerry" who had "some friends who could help some friends have a change of attitude." In a subsequent tape-recorded conversation, defendant again referenced Barbecue Jerry and stated:
After these initial conversations, Bowden was instructed to discredit Barbecue Jerry and attempt to convince defendant to hire Robert Holguin, an investigator with the De Kalb police department, as his "hit man." Bowden then had the following conversation with defendant concerning Holguin:
Bowden subsequently called defendant to make arrangements for defendant to meet Holguin and give him the money. The defendant reluctantly agreed to the meeting, after Bowden explained that Holguin would only take the job if defendant met him personally. Holguin, wearing a wire, met the defendant at a fast-food restaurant and the following conversation ensued:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sanchez
...like entrapment, is not available to a defendant who denies the commission of the offense. See People v. Landwer, 166 Ill.2d 475, 477–95, 211 Ill.Dec. 465, 655 N.E.2d 848 (1995); People v. Gengler, 251 Ill.App.3d 213, 222, 190 Ill.Dec. 107, 620 N.E.2d 1368 (1993). The trial court considered......
-
People v. Pinkonsly
...for failing to raise a putative legal error in a proceeding where only fact errors are cognizable. See People v. Landwer, 166 Ill.2d 475, 486, 211 Ill.Dec. 465, 655 N.E.2d 848 (1995) ("Whether a charged offense encompasses an included offense is a matter of law"). The appellate court erred ......
-
People v. Salinas
...another to commit a murder with the intent that the offense of first-degree murder be committed. People v. Landwer, 166 Ill.2d 475, 488, 211 Ill.Dec. 465, 655 N.E.2d 848 (1995), citing 720 ILCS 5/8-1.2 (West 1992). Here, during the trial, there was substantial evidence which showed that Mir......
-
People v. Davis
...688 N.E.2d 1166 (1997); People v. Jones, 175 Ill.2d 126, 135, 221 Ill.Dec. 843, 676 N.E.2d 646 (1997); People v. Landwer, 166 Ill.2d 475, 491-92, 211 Ill.Dec. 465, 655 N.E.2d 848 (1995); People v. Novak, 163 Ill.2d 93, 115-16, 205 Ill.Dec. 471, 643 N.E.2d 762 (1994). The trial court allowed......