People v. Peace
| Decision Date | 29 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-544,79-544 |
| Citation | 88 Ill.App.3d 1090,411 N.E.2d 334,44 Ill.Dec. 365 |
| Parties | , 44 Ill.Dec. 365 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Mark PEACE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Peter B. Nolte, Rockford, for defendant-appellant.
William E. Sisler, State's Atty., Freeport, Phyllis J. Perko, Martin P. Moltz, State's Attys. Appellate Service Commission, Elgin, for plaintiff-appellee.
In a bench trial defendant, Jeffrey Mark Peace, was found guilty of attempt rape, burglary and battery; he was found not guilty of indecent liberties with a child, intimidation and unlawful restraint. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment for the attempt rape, three years for the burglary, and 90 days for the battery.
On the night of May 12-13, 1979 the complainant, a twelve-year-old girl, was babysitting at a home near Winslow, Illinois. About 12:30 or 1:00 o'clock on the morning of the 13th there was a knock on the door; a man asked for gasoline. Complainant did not allow him to enter the house and refused to help him. A few minutes later there was another knock on the door and the man asked for a container for the gasoline. Complainant did not give the man permission to enter the house but when she went to get a container the man, who she identified at trial as defendant, walked in the door. Defendant took the container and went outside. He then returned the container and asked to use the telephone, which he was allowed to do. After completing the call he went back outside and complainant heard an engine start and saw that a car that had previously been by the gas barrel was now gone. There was another knock on the door in two or three minutes and defendant again asked to use the telephone. Complainant consented and allowed him to enter the house, at which time he attacked complainant. The attack was interrupted by the arrival of the homeowners.
Defendant contends first that he was deprived of a fair trial when the State attempted on the morning of trial to have the defense comply with a previous discovery order. Specifically, the State sought disclosure, pursuant to the previous order, of the results of a lie detector test taken by defendant and the trial court ordered compliance. Defendant suggests that the only purpose in requesting compliance with the order was to prejudice the trial judge against him and to suggest that defendant did not volunteer the results because they were unfavorable to him.
The record reveals that the matter of the lie detector test was first raised on July 13, 1979 at a hearing on pending motions, at which time defendant's attorney asked for the prosecutor to arrange for defendant to take a lie detector test; at that time the State indicated that it had no interest in such a test and did not want to be informed of the results of the test. On the day of trial the State did request that defendant reveal the results of the test; the defense attorney responded that the State had indicated previously that it did not wish to know the results of the test; and the trial court ruled that the discovery order did allow for the revealing of the results of the test and for statements of experts in relation thereto, although the actual questions and answers used in the test were not to be revealed. Defendant's attorney responded that there was "no problem" turning over the results of the test and the opinion of the tester, and a brief recess was taken to allow the defense to provide the State with copies of the results and opinion. After the recess, defendant's attorney stated that he believed it was improper to be required to disclose the test results, and that it was only being done to comply with the court's ruling. There is no indication in the record that the trial court ever saw the test results or the opinion of the person administering the test and in announcing his decision at the end of the trial, the trial judge extensively discussed the factors on which he relied in determining defendant's guilt; there is no indication from the judge's comments that any reliance was placed on the fact that defendant had taken a lie detector test. In light of the fact that defendant initially requested the lie detector test in open court and before the same judge who tried the case; that when ordered to comply with the discovery order by revealing the test results the defense did not object, but rather stated that there was "no problem" in turning over the results, objecting only later to revealing the results; that the record does not show that the trial court ever saw the results; and that the announced decision by the trial judge did not include any consideration of the test or its results; and considering finally that it is presumed that the trial court considers only proper evidence in reaching its conclusion (People v. Gilbert (1977), 68 Ill.2d 252, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ray v. State
...v. Reams, 292 Or. 1, 636 P.2d 913 (1981); State v. Papineau, 53 Or.App. 33, 630 P.2d 904 (1981); see also State v. Peace, 88 Ill.App.3d 1090, 44 Ill.Dec. 365, 411 N.E.2d 334 (1980) (although defendant may have remained in house unlawfully to assault baby-sitter after being invited in to use......
-
Streif v. Bovinette
... ... the interests of the party in whose favor it is granted, and should not be so broad as to prevent defendant from exercising his rights." People ex rel. Traiteur v. Abbott (5th Dist. 1975), 27 Ill.App.3d 277, 282-83, 327 N.E.2d 130, 134 ... Accordingly, we find it necessary ... ...
-
People v. Sanders
... ... 612, 444 N.E.2d 1096, appeal denied, 93 Ill.2d 547 (third party consent to warrantless searches); People v. Scott (1982), 108 Ill.App.3d 607, 64 Ill.Dec. 201, 439 N.E.2d 130 (defendant's acquittal of burglary charge removed intent necessary to convict for home invasion); People v. Peace (1980), 88 Ill.App.3d 1090, 44 Ill.Dec ... Page 1163 ... [84 Ill.Dec. 767] 365, 411 N.E.2d 334 (pre-dated Hudson and restricted "limited authority" doctrine to burglary of public buildings); and People v. Pettus (1980), 84 Ill.App.3d 390, 39 Ill.Dec. 736, 405 N.E.2d 489, appeal denied, 81 ... ...
-
People v. Bailey
...of which involved the offense of home invasion. The court in Sanders found distinguishable the case of People v. Peace (1980), 88 Ill.App.3d 1090, 44 Ill.Dec. 365, 411 N.E.2d 334, as predating Hudson and restricting the "limited authority" doctrine to burglary of public buildings. The court......