People v. Middleton
| Decision Date | 17 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 59499,59499 |
| Citation | 350 N.E.2d 223,38 Ill.App.3d 984 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James MIDDLETON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Sam Adam, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Cook County, Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, and John F. Brennan, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant, James Middleton, was found guilty by a jury of deviate sexual assault (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, § 11--3) and aggravated battery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, § 12--4(c)), and sentenced to a term of not less than 5 nor more than 10 years.
The count of the indictment charging aggravated battery alleged that on February 7, 1970 the defendant administered to the complainant by deception, for other than medical purposes, an intoxicating, stupefying, anesthetic substance. The deviate sexual assault count alleged that on the same day the defendant, by force, compelled the complainant to submit to an act of oral copulation.
Prior to trial, the defendant moved that the circuit court order a psychiatric examination of the complainant. In support of his motion the defendant asserted that on December 29, 1971, the complainant filed a lawsuit against Dr. Middleton in the circuit court of Cook County in which she alleged that she suffered from psychological problems and had expended large sums of money because of those problems. The circuit court denied the motion.
The complainant testified at the trial that she first visited Dr. Middleton on December 29, 1969 when she felt weak and developed swollen glands after donating blood. Dr. Middleton took the complainant's medical history, said he thought she had mononucleosis and gave her an injection. The complainant visited Dr. Middleton in his office nine times after the initial visit and prior to January 27, 1970, receiving an injection during each visit. On January 27, 1970, the complainant told Dr. Middleton that she had been to a hospital the previous week because of menstrual problems. Dr. Middleton told her that he would give her an internal physical after her period stopped. During this visit Dr. Middleton gave the complainant an injection that he said was streptomycin and a sedative.
The complainant testified that she went to defendant's office on February 3, 1970, received an injection and was told to undress for an internal examination. She testified that after the injection was administered, her face and the back of her neck became very hot, as defendant had predicted. In addition she felt in a stupor, drugged, dizzy, weak and with impaired vision. The internal examination lasted for 15 to 20 minutes and Dr. Middleton stopped the examination when the complainant asked if something was wrong with her. During the examination the defendant asked her in what positions she made love with her husband. After the examination, the complainant was unable to drive home.
The complainant's next and last appointment with Dr. Middleton was on February 7, 1970, when whe was accompanied by a friend who waited for her while the doctor saw her. The complainant was again given an injection and told to undress for another internal physical. The complainant testified that defendant manipulated her vagina with his fingers and she started shaking all over. He told her he would not hurt her, and that she should never be afraid to have a climax. She testified that defendant then performed oral copulation on her. During the time her body was shaking, she had very little muscular control, was scared, felt physically unable to get off the examining table and could not see clearly.
The witness testified that after the injection administered on February 7, her voice became very deep, the hair on her body became considerably longer, the hair under her chin was almost half an inch long and she had no menstrual cycle in February.
The complainant testified that after leaving the defendant's office on February 7, 1970, she went to a coffee shop with the friend who had accompanied her to the doctor's office. While in the coffee shop she told her friend what happened while she was in Dr. Middleton's office. The friend testified that after the complainant left the doctor's office, the complainant was shaking a great deal and her voice was trembling.
The complainant's husband testified that he saw the complainant 2 hours after the incident; she was very nervous and her speech was slurred.
The prosecution called six women other than the complainant who had been patients of Dr. Middleton. It is not necessary to review their testimony in detail. It is sufficient to note the following:
(a) All six witnesses testified to treatment they had received from Dr. Middleton between 1968 and 1971.
(b) All six witnesses received injections from the defendant (often supposedly in treatment for anemia) the immediate results of which were weakness, dizziness, a stinging sensation, warmth and in some cases inability to move.
(c) In the case of four of these witnesses, the defendant took advantage of this weakness by manipulating them sexually, often in the course of prolonged internal examinations. The defendant told the witnesses that they should have climaxes while he manipulated them.
(d) The defendant showed a great deal of interest in the sex lives of the witnesses, especially whether they practiced oral copulation. He offered to perform it on three of the patients.
(e) Over a period of time, all six witnesses developed symptoms such as growth of facial and body hair, deepening of the voice, deterioration of the complexion, irregularity in the menstrual cycle, enlargement of the clitoris and heightening of the sex drive.
The jury was instructed that the testimony of these six patients should be considered only on the issue of defendant's design, motive, intent and knowledge.
The witnesses for the defense included Dr. I. James Young, Dr. Ronald Rosenberg and the defendant. The defendant denied that he performed oral copulation on the complainant or that he gave her drugs for non-medical purposes.
Dr. Young had treated the complainant at Northwest Community Hospital in Arlington Heights for injuries she suffered as a passenger in a car driven by her husband which was involved in an auto crash a few hours after the claimed sexual assault. The complainant testified that she told Dr. Young that she had been attacked. Dr. Young denied that the complainant had ever told him this. On cross-examination, Dr. Young testified that he has treated more than a thousand patients since he saw the complainant. He stated that he usually, but not invariably, takes notes of his conversations with patients involving their sex problems.
Dr. Rosenberg, an anesthesiologist, testified that no injection could cause the symptoms described by the complainant as the immediate results of her February 7 injection. On cross-examination, Dr. Rosenberg testified that a large number of drugs can cause dizziness, a weighted-down feeling and loss of feeling in muscles or extremities. He stated that scopolamine frequently caused flushness in patients. In discussing drugs which could cause paralysis without loss of consciousness, Dr. Rosenberg replied as follows to a question about a person's ability to resist after being administered such drugs: 'Insofar as he could breathe he could also move all his extremities, perhaps weakly, but this would depend on the dose * * *.'
The issues raised by defendant on this appeal are: Was it error to admit the testimony concerning defendant's conduct with patients other than complainant; did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to order a psychiatric examination of the complainant; was defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; was defendant denied a fair trial by certain comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument; did the trial court err in refusing to admit tape recordings into evidence during a hearing on defendant's post-trial motion to vacate the judgment; and, did the prosecution suppress evidence favorable to the defendant?
Defendant first argues that it was error to admit the testimony of the six patients other than the complainant. The general rule is that evidence of a defendant's misconduct which is similar to the conduct constituting the alleged crime is not admissible to create an inference of guilt. However, in People v. McDonald (1975), 62 Ill.2d 448, 343 N.E.2d 489, the Illinois Supreme Court applied an exception to the general rule under circumstances similar to those in this case. The defendant in McDonald was found guilty of burglary and not guilty of attempted murder. The incident for which he was prosecuted took place on December 1, 1969. The victim and the investigating police testified concerning the details of the crime. Another witness testified that she had been similarly attacked by the defendant on December 4, 1969. Her testimony showed that the attack upon her and upon the December 1 victim were nearly identical with respect to time of day when they occurred, the way in which the intruder gained entry, the clothing the intruder wore and the manner of the attack. The court held that the testimony of the witness who was not the complainant was properly admitted to show Modus operandi, stating:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burgin, 77-1886
... ... It shows a cunning and rather unusual scheme common to both cases and a common method of procedure. Evidence of a defendant's Modus operandi may be relevant not only to the issue of who committed the crime, but also to the issue of whether a crime was actually committed. People v. Middleton (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 984, 990, 350 N.E.2d 223; see also Osborn, 53 Ill.App.3d 312, 11 Ill.Dec. 57, 368 N.E.2d 608 ... Defendant also contends that Modus operandi evidence is irrelevant and therefore not admissible in a case where consent is the issue. We reject this argument ... ...
-
People v. Walls
... ... People v. Gonzales (1978), 60 Ill.App.3d 980, 992, 17 Ill.Dec. 901, 377 N.E.2d 91; People v. Osborn (1977), 53 Ill.App.3d 312, 323, 11 Ill.Dec. 57, 368 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied (1978), 439 U.S. 837, 99 S.Ct. 122, 58 L.Ed.2d 134; People v. Middleton (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 984, 990, 350 N.E.2d 223 ... Defendant cites People v. Connors (1980), 82 Ill.App.3d 312, 37 Ill.Dec. 771, 402 N.E.2d 773, as being dispositive of this issue. There, defendant was being tried for an armed robbery which occurred at about 11:35 p. m. The ... ...
-
State v. Romero
... ... State v. Ginsberg, 167 Minn. 25, 208 N.W. 177 (1926); State v. Iosue, 220 Minn. 283, 19 N.W.2d 735 (1945); People v. Delaney, 28 Ill.App.3d 315, 328 N.E.2d 656 (1975); State v. Hassard, 45 Haw. 221, 365 P.2d 202 (1961); De Leon v. Territory, 9 Ariz. 161, 80 P ... 99, 386 N.E.2d 370 (1979) ... Psychological problems do not necessarily affect competency to testify. People v. Middleton, 38 Ill.App.3d 984, 350 N.E.2d 223 (1976). A mandatory rule that a rape victim submit to a psychological or psychiatric examination would be contrary ... ...
-
Hatfield, In Interest of
... Page 453 ... 390 N.E.2d 453 ... 72 Ill.App.3d 249, 28 Ill.Dec. 286 ... In the Interest of Jack HATFIELD, a minor ... PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, ... Jack HATFIELD, Respondent-Appellant ... No. 77-1760 ... Appellate Court of Illinois, First ... Gaitor (1977), 49 Ill.App.3d 449, 7 Ill.Dec. 323, 364 N.E.2d 484), ... (3) was "favorable" to him (People v. Middleton (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 984, 350 N.E.2d 223); and ... (4) that the prosecutor failed to disclose this evidence in response to a "specific" request ... ...