People v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 04 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 70985,70985 |
| Citation | 610 N.E.2d 16,154 Ill.2d 414,182 Ill.Dec. 592 |
| Parties | , 182 Ill.Dec. 592 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Aaron PATTERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
John D. Lien, Joan M. Kubalanza, Foley & Lardner, Chicago, for appellant.
Roland W. Burris, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Jack O'Malley, State's Atty., Chicago (Terence M. Madsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, and Renee Goldfarb and Carol L. Gaines, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
The following facts were adduced at trial. On Saturday, April 19, 1986, Vincent Sanchez, aged 73 years, and Rafaela Sanchez, aged 62 years, were found stabbed to death inside their ransacked home, located at 8849 South Burley Avenue, Chicago. Forensic evidence established that the couple died as a result of multiple stab wounds consistent with infliction by either a hunting or butcher knife. Their badly decomposed bodies were discovered after Wayne Washington, a 13-year-old youth who routinely performed odd jobs for the couple, alerted neighbors. Washington testified that he noticed that the rear door of the Sanchez residence was open and that the kitchen floor was bloody and so told a neighbor.
When police arrived, they were able to enter the home only by the rear door; the front door was barricaded and had numerous items in front of it. There was no evidence of forced entry. Vincent Sanchez was found lying in the bathroom and Rafaela was found on the dining room floor.
The kitchen, dining and living rooms of the residence were "a ransacked mess" with numerous objects, boxes, and papers strewn about and drawers and cabinets open. A police evidence technician testified that the home contained an excessive amount of used clothing, shoes, radios, etc. The second floor also contained a great deal of used, general merchandise.
A search of the residence by police uncovered four handguns from the bottom of a clothes hamper located in the dining room. Police recovered gun registration documentation for one of the guns from the pocket of Vincent's pants. Holsters and ammunition were also found in the residence.
Walter Collins, a police crime lab technician, testified concerning prints found at the scene. Collins testified that there were three footwear impressions of blood on the kitchen floor. There was also a single footprint impression of dirt with a minute amount of blood found on the back porch. A fingerprint was found on the exterior of the rear door to the home and a "multiple-type" palm print was found on the exterior of the bathroom door. Other prints were taken from two tape recorders, one of which was found on the back porch.
Rafaela's sister testified that she had last spoken to Rafaela the Wednesday before the victims' bodies were discovered. She believed that Vincent occupied his time by reselling items.
Following the police officers' discovery of the bodies, they questioned Washington. He told police that he saw Eric Caine and "DeEdward" "across from" the Sanchez residence which is located near Washington's school. Police located DeEdward and brought him to the police station for Washington to identify.
On or about April 21, 1986, police received information that defendant had told Marva Hall, DeEdward's cousin, that he, not DeEdward, had killed the victims. On April 30, 1986, defendant was found by police hiding in the attic of James Hill's home. Police were searching for defendant because they had a warrant for his arrest on an unrelated matter. After police found defendant, they transported him to the fourth district police station. Detective James Pienta testified that he had been looking for defendant in connection with the Sanchez murders and had spoken with defendant's father, a police sergeant. When Pienta learned that defendant was in custody, he and Detective William Marley, his partner, proceeded to the fourth district station and transported defendant to Area Two Violent Crimes headquarters, where he was questioned by the two officers.
According to police, defendant initially denied knowledge of the Sanchez murders. However, following the administration of a polygraph examination and further questioning, defendant admitted the murders to police and assistant State's Attorneys. Defendant and Caine were subsequently indicted for the murders. Before trial, defendant unsuccessfully moved for the suppression of his statements. Defendant and Caine were thereafter tried together by means of a "double jury" procedure.
At trial, Marva Hall, aged 16 years, testified that on April 20, 1986, she saw defendant in a car with two other persons at 91st Street and Mackinaw Avenue. Hall had known defendant for three or four years and knew him to be a leader in the "Apache Rangers" street gang. According to Hall, defendant showed her a shotgun and a chain saw which were in the car and asked whether she knew anyone who wanted to buy the items. Hall testified that defendant told her that he had obtained the items from the elderly Mexicans who were "next to the old empty lot" and that he had stabbed them to death. Hall further testified that defendant told her that Michael Arbuckle and another person were with him at the time. Defendant also informed Hall that DeEdward, her cousin, had been taken to jail for killing "some white peoples," but that DeEdward had not killed them, he had. According to Hall, a few hours later, she saw DeEdward on the street. He had been held by police for several hours. The next day, Hall's mother-in-law called police. Shortly thereafter, Hall related to police what defendant had told her.
Under cross-examination, Hall agreed that when she was interviewed by Isaac Carrothers, a defense investigator, she denied that defendant had told her he committed the murders. Hall also agreed that during the interview with Carrothers, she denied telling the police that defendant committed the murders. According to Hall, she signed a statement to that effect, taken by Carrothers, because defendant had telephoned her from jail on four occasions and threatened to kill her if she appeared in court. Hall admitted, however, that she had never called the police concerning the threats and she did not tell Carrothers that she had been threatened. According to Hall, she was still afraid of defendant.
Carrothers testified that during the interview with Hall, she had not appeared frightened when signing the statement, nor had she told him of any threats by defendant. Rather, Hall had expressed to Carrothers that she was afraid of police. The trial court denied admission into evidence of Hall's signed statement taken by Carrothers.
Pienta testified that, after defendant was returned to Area Two following the polygraph examination, he confessed under questioning, relating the following. Before the murders, Caine approached defendant and said that he badly needed guns and assistance "on the street." Defendant and Caine knew that there were guns at the Sanchez residence and they decided to go there because Caine would be able to gain admittance to the Sanchez home. Defendant and Caine decided not to use a car driven by Caine, but walked down the Illinois Central railroad tracks. Defendant remained by a garage, while Caine went in the residence from the rear. While Caine was inside, defendant heard noise and Caine came running out, carrying a red bag containing a shotgun. They both fled.
According to Pienta, when he asked defendant to elaborate, defendant again related basically the same story, but added that he had been called into the Sanchez home, went in and, when the "old man" was taking too much time for the "good stuff," defendant had "c[o]me up like-up like a straight up Ninja" and "shanked him." Defendant then went on to relate that the woman started screaming and yelling, so he "shanked" her, also. Defendant said that "he had her springing everywhere." At the conclusion of this interview, Pienta went with other officers to locate Caine and he was brought back to Area Two Pienta further testified that during a later interview, in the early hours of the following morning, with Assistant State's Attorney Kip Owen present, defendant again related basically the same story. Defendant, however, added that he had entered the Sanchez residence armed with a revolver which did not work, but that "the old chump didn't know that." Defendant further added that he had obtained a knife from the kitchen and that Caine also had a knife. Defendant related that he had asked the old man for the "good stuff," but "that chump was too slow in getting it." Defendant again stated that he "came like a straight up Ninja," the "old man" was scared, tried to run and he "shanked him." He again stated as well that the woman started screaming, tried to run and he "shanked her, too." According to Pienta, defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fair
... ... (People v. Patterson (1992), 154 Ill.2d 414, 476, 182 Ill.Dec. 592, 610 N.E.2d 16, quoting People v. Brisbon (1989), 129 Ill.2d 200, 218-19, 135 Ill.Dec. 801, 544 N.E.2d 297.) This court has found that evidence ... Page 476 ... [201 Ill.Dec. 44] containing hearsay is not per se inadmissible. Young, 128 Ill.2d ... ...
-
Norris v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
... ... the doctrine "merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided; it is not a limit on their power." People v. Patterson, 154 Ill.2d 414, 468, 182 Ill.Dec. 592, 610 N.E.2d 16 (1992) ... The law of the case doctrine's purpose is "to ... ...
-
People v. Franklin
... ... A point raised in a brief but not argued or supported by citation to relevant authority fails to satisfy the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (134 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7)) and is therefore waived. (People v. Patterson (1992), 154 Ill.2d 414, 455, 182 Ill.Dec. 592, 610 N.E.2d 16.) The two remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are whether counsel was ineffective when he failed to impeach Buddy Williams with the statement he made to Will County authorities and whether counsel was ineffective for ... ...
-
People v. Bonds, 1-07-1629.
... ... Consequently, the trial court did not err in barring their admission ... Harmless Error ... There is no need to consider whether any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as we find no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings. See People v. Patterson", 154 Ill.2d 414, 447, 182 Ill.Dec. 592, 610 N.E.2d 16, 30 (1992). The trial judge was consistently at the forefront of ... 908 N.E.2d 120 ... each issue arising at trial. We find his actions and decisions to be utterly without error throughout the proceedings ... One-Act, One-Crime ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...(1st Dist 2006), §§1:140, 22:10 People v. Patrick, 233 Ill 2d 62, 908 NE2d 1 (2009), §§1:270, 1:290, 8:30, 9:110 People v. Patterson , 154 Ill 2d 414, 610 NE2d 16 (1992), §§5:40, 5:50 People v. Patterson , 192 Ill 2d 93, 735 NE2d 616 (2000), §5:40 People v. Patterson , 217 Ill 2d 407, 841 N......
-
Confusing, Prejudicial & Bolstering
...of a crime is that the defendant had a motive to fabricate favorable testimony relating to his or her innocence. People v. Patterson , 154 Ill 2d 414, 610 NE2d 16 (1992); People v. Grayson , 321 Ill App 3d 397, 747 NE2d 460 (2001). In any event, the term “self-serving” is something of a mis......