People v. Outlaw
| Decision Date | 14 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-720,78-720 |
| Citation | 75 Ill.App.3d 626,394 N.E.2d 541,31 Ill.Dec. 339 |
| Parties | , 31 Ill.Dec. 339 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John OUTLAW (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Ralph Ruebner, Deputy State Appellate Defender and Patricia Unsinn, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
Bernard Carey, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago (Marcia B. Orr and James S. Veldman, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
This is an appeal by defendant John Outlaw (hereinafter "Outlaw") from a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of murder, one count of conspiracy to commit burglary, one count of burglary and one count of armed robbery. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 150 to 300 years on each count of murder, 25 to 50 years for armed robbery and 10 to 20 years for burglary.
The appellate issues presented include whether: (1) the testimony of an accomplice witness was sufficient to support the conviction of defendant for the murder of two men during an abortive burglary; (2) the trial court committed reversible error in denying defendant's motion to suppress certain statements made by him and should have made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in ruling on the motion; (3) the State concealed evidence or misled defense counsel with respect to certain evidence; (4) cross-examination of alibi defense witnesses regarding their failure to notify police and the State of defendant's alibi, and comment upon their failure to do so, violated due process and had the effect of shifting to defendant the burden of proving his innocence; (5) prior consistent statements of a witness may be introduced to bolster and corroborate his trial testimony where the statement was made at a time within which the witness had a motive to fabricate; (6) the confrontation clause requires disclosure of the facts leading to a prior conviction of an accomplice witness to show that the bargain struck by that witness and the State was unduly favorable to the witness; (7) the introduction of certain gruesome photographs and other exhibits denied defendant due process where they related to no disputed issue of fact, are cumulative of other evidence, and tended to inflame the emotions of the jury; and (8) the court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence over defendant's objections.
For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm.
This case involves the murders of two men, Michael Rysiewicz (hereinafter "Rysiewicz") and Lawrence O'Connor (hereinafter "O'Connor"), who were bludgeoned to death on January 23, 1976 during an abortive burglary of fur trim and leather coats from the Chicago warehouse of the Spiegel Corporation (hereinafter "Spiegel"). Because defendant's conviction is founded substantially upon circumstantial evidence, we will set forth the facts in some detail.
The fur trim and leather coats were located in a locked vault on the fifth floor of a large Spiegel warehouse known as building "K" located at 1200 W. 35th Street, Chicago. Outlaw was one of Spiegel's employees who worked in the warehouse as a shipping clerk on the day of the murders from 7:20 a. m. to 4 p. m. O'Connor was on duty in building "K" as a Spiegel security guard whose work hours began at 4 p. m. and ended at midnight. He was assigned to guard the front door of building "K". Rysiewicz was a Spiegel maintenance man assigned to building "K" where he worked from 9 a. m. until 5:30 p. m. Another Spiegel security guard, working in the building "K" dock area was Alvin J. Holmes (hereinafter "Holmes"). Company rules required that all security guards be unarmed.
On the evening of the murders, Holmes testified, he began work at 4 p. m. and was assigned to the rear gate of building "K". The dock area guarded by Holmes, utilized in loading and unloading of trucks, had eighteen docks, numbered 1 through 18, from east to west, and was surrounded by a fence with a single gate for ingress and egress by vehicles. At about 6 p. m., Holmes saw an unfamiliar orange and silver U-Haul truck approach the gate and partially enter the yard. Holmes told the driver, subsequently identified by him as Gregory Williams (hereinafter "Williams"), a cousin of Outlaw's, that the area was restricted; no merchandise could be picked up after 4 p. m.; and Williams would have to leave. He gave Williams permission to drive into the yard so as to make a U-turn and saw Williams drive the truck to dock 10, turn it around and then pause. He began walking westward to see why Williams wasn't coming out of the yard and as he did so, noticed that dock door 7 was up almost all the way. He opened the door further and looked inside because the door should have been down. It was dark outside and the lighting conditions inside "K" building were poor since most of the lights had been turned out for the evening. He saw an individual inside the building some six feet away, about 6 supervisor arrived at the scene five or six minutes after the call, armed Holmes, and directed him to call Chicago police. The police arrived within a few minutes and took custody of Williams.
At 4 a. m. on January 24, 1976, Holmes attended a police lineup, in a police station known as "Area 3 Homicide," at 39th Street and California Avenue. He identified Williams as the U-Haul truck driver and Outlaw as a Spiegel employee whom he had known for about five years. Outlaw was of the same height and weight as the person he saw inside the doorway of dock 7.
Raymond Stafford testified that he was Spiegel's protection manager on the day of the murders, and worked the 4 p. m. to 12 midnight shift. While in his office at 1040 W. 35th Street, he received a phone call to come to "K" building. He went to the main entrance on 35th Street, tried to unlock the door, and then noticed that the door was unlocked; it should have been locked at that time, 6 p. m. The guard who should have been on duty, O'Connor, was not at his desk. Stafford made a cursory search for O'Connor on the first, second and third floors, calling to him in each instance, but received no answer. He then went to the dock area and saw the orange and silver U-Haul truck parked near the gate and instructed Holmes to call the police, giving him a weapon, and telling him to hold Williams until they came.
Frank Cusimano, a Chicago police officer, testified that he was assigned to the 9th District Station at 35th Street and Lowe Avenue on the day of the murders, working from 4 p. m. to midnight. He and his partner, Officer Dave Allen, were assigned to search building "K" at 6:30 p. m. The first floor in the northwest area of the building was poorly lighted and he and his partner were carrying flashlights. He saw a silhouette lying on the floor. With his flashlight he saw a white male lying on his back in a pool of blood, his eyes and mouth wide open, several scratches on his face and a large gaping hole in the left side of his head. Several pieces of brain matter were lying splashed within a one and one-half foot area from the top of his head. He later learned the name of that person to be Michael Rysiewicz. After calling for assistance, he remained at the scene until members of the K-9 police dog search unit arrived.
Theodore Zudyk, a Chicago police sergeant assigned to the K-9 unit, testified that on the day of the murders he was assigned to search the third floor of building "K" at about 6:45 to 7 p. m., together with Officer James Roser and a K-9 dog. He found a large trail of blood leading to and under a door at the east end of the cafeteria; on the other side of the door the trail of blood led to a "gurney" (a wooden pushcart designed to move merchandise, waste paper and refuse), under which was another large pool of blood. After he removed a fiber barrel in the gurney, he saw a middle-aged white male, wearing a guard's uniform, lying on his side at the bottom of the gurney, his face and neck covered with blood with large, gaping puncture wounds apparent. He found no pulse. He later learned that the name of that person was Lawrence O'Connor.
Meanwhile, Williams, the driver of the U-Haul truck taken into custody by police, was removed to the 9th District Station. Williams testified that police examined his wallet which was found to contain John Outlaw's driver's license. He first told the police that he was John Outlaw. He did not remember whether he had Outlaw's social security card in his wallet, or not. He was thereafter removed to Area 3 Homicide. There, at first, he refused to talk to the police about the burglary. Then, he lied to them, but not about the case; he told them nothing about the case. He was later asked about killings at the warehouse. When he told them that he knew nothing about the killings, he was not lying. At about 4 a. m., the police told him what they knew about the case. After talking with his mother, whom he had summoned, he told the police and Michael Crane, an assistant state's attorney, what he knew of the attempted burglary and gave them a twelve-page typewritten statement.
Williams, a former Spiegel employee, testified at the trial that in mid-January, Outlaw suggested the burglary of coats at the Spiegel warehouse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State, 38
... ... Brown, 11 Mass.App.Ct. 288, 416 N.E.2d 218, 224 (1981) cert. denied, 383 Mass. 891 (Mass.1981); People v. Brown, 62 A.D.2d 715, 405 N.Y.S.2d 691, 695 (N.Y.App.Div.1978), aff'd, 48 N.Y.2d 921, 425 N.Y.S.2d 54, 401 N.E.2d 177 (1979); People v. Dawson, ... Outlaw, 75 Ill.App.3d 626, 31 Ill.Dec. 339, 353, 394 N.E.2d 541, 555 (1979) ("[A] prosecutor [is permitted] to inquire of witnesses as to whether they had ... ...
-
People v. Gorosteata
... ... We reject that contention. Our research reveals the law to be contrary to defendant's position. See People v. Outlaw, 75 Ill.App.3d 626, 645, 31 Ill. Dec. 339, 394 N.E.2d 541 (1979) ("The State maintains that it is proper for a prosecutor, on cross-examination, to inquire into the circumstances of an alibi [citation], and to inquire of witnesses as to whether they had told the same story previously in order to ... ...
-
People v. Vanda
... ... [111 Ill.App.3d 567] The latitude allowed in cross-examination of a witness is generally a matter within the trial court's discretion. (People v. Outlaw (1979), 75 Ill.App.3d 626, 31 Ill.Dec. 339, 394 N.E.2d 541.) The trial judge's decision in this area will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion that results in manifest prejudice to the defendant. (People v. Robinson (1978), 67 Ill.App.3d 539, 24 Ill.Dec. 95, 384 N.E.2d ... ...
-
People v. Davis
... ... 82, 485 N.E.2d 1292, appeal denied.) In such cases, the trial court is granted wide discretion to weigh the relevance of the evidence against its possible prejudice. (People v. Stewart (1984), 122 Ill.App.3d 546, 549, 78 Ill.Dec. 7, 461 N.E.2d 591; People v. Outlaw (1979), 75 Ill.App.3d 626, 650, 31 Ill.Dec. 339, 394 N.E.2d 541, appeal denied.) However, evidence which is otherwise relevant will not be excluded simply because it tends to prejudice the accused. People v. Wright[151 Ill.App.3d 440] (1986), 140 Ill.App.3d 576, 579, 95 Ill.Dec. 1, 488 N.E.2d ... ...