People v. Phillips., 79-1470

Citation51 Ill.Dec. 423,95 Ill.App.3d 1013,420 N.E.2d 837
Decision Date04 May 1981
Docket NumberNo. 79-1470,79-1470
Parties, 51 Ill.Dec. 423 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benny E. PHILLIPS a/k/a Benny Earl Phillips, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael J. Pelletier, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Richard M. Daley, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago (Marcia B. Orr and Richard F. Burke, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

CAMPBELL, Presiding Justice:

Benny Earl Phillips brings this appeal after a jury trial where he was convicted of one count of attempt murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 8-4), four counts of aggravated battery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, pars. 12-4(a), (b)(1)), and one count of armed violence based on the underlying offense of aggravated battery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 33A-2). He urges the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in defense of another when he shot the complaining witness; (2) whether his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and Fifth Amendment right to due process were violated by the trial court's restriction of the complaining witness' cross-examination; (3) whether the defendant was denied his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and his Fifth Amendment right to due process where the State cross-examined him and later commented during closing argument that he failed to notify anyone prior to his arrest that he had shot the complaining witness in defense of another; (4) whether the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses arising out of the same single act; and (5) whether the defendant's sentences should be reduced because the trial court failed to duly consider the factors in mitigation.

We reverse and remand for a new trial.

The defendant's convictions arose out of a shooting incident which took place on May 17, 1978, whereby Chicago Police Officer Jerry Stanley was seriously injured. Prior to trial the State filed two motions in limine. The first motion sought to preclude the defense from presenting any evidence of Stanley's blood alcohol content at the time of the shooting and the effect such alcohol content had on Stanley. This motion was denied. The second motion sought to preclude the defense from using information from Stanley's Chicago Police Department Internal Affairs Department file which revealed that from October of 1968 to the incident Stanley had been suspended fifteen times including two instances, one in October, 1968, and the other in February 1974, where Stanley improperly displayed his weapon and then filed a false report. Defense counsel argued that this evidence was admissible because it showed the complaining witness' prior bad acts. The trial court granted the motion in limine ruling that the matters contained in the file were collateral.

At the trial the State presented three witnesses in its case in chief. Officer Stanley testified that on May 17, 1978, he was on his annual furlough. He testified that on that afternoon he ate something about 12:30 p. m. and then proceeded to the Catesia Lounge where he played pinball and drank Old Fitzgerald bourbon with his cousin and brother-in-law. He stated that from approximately 1:00 p. m. to 4:00 p. m. he had four drinks. At about 4:00 p. m. he took his brother-in-law home, stopped by his mother's house, and then dropped his cousin back at the lounge. He then proceeded home by way of South May Street. On May Street, which is a one-way southbound street, he encountered a car blocking the street. He testified that he waited five or six minutes in his car and then asked the man, later identified as James Phillips, to move the car. He stated that he needed to enter the alley because he lived nearby. The man responded, "m______ f______, if you want to get by you either back out the street or drive through your car." Stanley testified that at this point he told James that he would get the car towed. He walked to a house across the street where three people were seated outside and asked them to phone the police but they refused. As he exited through the front gate of this house, he noticed that the car blocking his way had not been moved and that James was advancing towards him with a tire iron held over his head. Stanley pulled his concealed gun and ordered the man to drop the tire iron. The man complied and Stanley began walking towards him with his gun still pointed at the man. The man retreated as Stanley approached him. When Stanley was within five to ten feet of the man and still holding the gun on him, he was shot for the first time. The shot came from behind and struck him in the right eye. Stanley first identified himself as a police officer after he fell. After he made this disclosure, Stanley stated that he heard someone say, "He is a copper, kill him" and that this was when he was shot a second time. This shot struck him in the right front shoulder. According to Stanley's testimony, there was approximately a 10 to 15 second interval between the first shot and the second shot. After this shot he heard at least two and maybe three additional shots but he was not hit again.

Police Officer Maurice McCaster testified that on May 17, 1978, he responded to a call concerning a man being shot on South May Street and when he arrived at the scene discovered that the victim was a police officer. He found Officer Stanley lying on the ground in the middle of the street and a car with its motor running parked in the middle of the street which was later determined to be Stanley's car. McCaster recovered Stanley's weapon and found that there were no spent cartridges.

The State also called Kevin Tacker as a witness. Tacker testified that on May 17, 1978, he and his neighbor James Phillips were attempting to recharge his car battery by using jumper cables with James' car. While they were working on his car, Tacker stated that man pulled up behind James' car which was double parked next to his so they could run the jumper cables between the cars. The man asked James whether he could move his car because it was blocking his way. Tacker identified this man as the complaining witness, Jerry Stanley. Tacker stated that James asked Stanley to wait a minute because they were trying to get the car started. Stanley waited for an unspecified period of time and then again asked if the car could be moved. At this point, according to Tacker, the two men exchanged words and curses. Shortly afterwards, James' car was moved from the middle of the street. Tacker next noticed Stanley on the other side of the street. He then heard someone say, "Well, he's got a gun." He looked up and observed Stanley at his car waving his pistol at James who was standing beside Tacker's car holding a tire iron. According to Tacker, as Stanley approached James he dropped the tire iron. James began backing up to avoid being struck by Stanley's gun. At this point Benny Phillips approached Stanley from behind and fired two consecutive shots at him.

After Tacker's testimony, there was a stipulation as to the extent of Stanley's eye injury. According to stipulation, Stanley lost at least partial use of his eye and suffered at least some permanent damage. At this point the State rested.

The defense called James Phillips to the stand. He testified that he owned a home at 8621 South May and had been employed by International Paper Company for eight years. He testified that on May 17, 1978, after he returned home from work he helped Kevin Tacker try to start his car. While he was attaching starter cables to his and Tacker's car, Stanley drove up behind his car and said he wanted to get by. James testified that he asked Stanley to wait a few minutes because they were just about done but Stanley said "m______ f______, do you want me to have this car towed? At this point James was unaware that Stanley was a police officer. After this conversation, Stanley walked to the east side of May Street and James removed the jumper cables from his car and had his brother Benny Earl Phillips, the defendant herein, move the car so that it would be out of the way. Shortly thereafter, Stanley returned from the other side of the street and continued to threaten to have James' car towed. At this time James was standing at the front of Tacker's car. Stanley returned to his car and James picked up his tools and laid them on top of Tacker's car. According to James, while Stanley was at his car he pulled his gun and began waving it in James' direction. He then came over to where James was standing and began hitting him with the pistol and telling him that he was going to whip him. James stated that he backed away from Stanley and then turned and ran. At this point he heard two shots. No shots were fired after these shots. He did not see who fired these two shots although he did see his brother walking down the street after the shooting. James further testified that after the shooting he approached Stanley lying on the ground and only then did Stanley identify himself as a police officer. James stated that in his opinion Stanley must have been intoxicated because he was not walking right and was speaking loudly and using foul language.

Two additional defense occurrence witnesses who testified were Robert Lee and Curtis Johnson who were on Lee's front porch watching the work progress on Tacker's car on the afternoon of May 17, 1978. Both observed Stanley drive up and a conversation ensue between him and James Phillips who was helping Tacker with his car. Both saw Stanley cross the street to talk with someone and then return to his car. Additionally, both testified that by the time Stanley returned to his car James' car had been moved down the street. Despite this fact, both men saw Stanley produce a gun from his car and start toward James saying that he was going to kick his m______ f______ a______. Both men...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • People v. Robinson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 19, 1987
    ...on matters that would reasonably tend to show bias, interest, or motive to testify falsely. (People v. Phillips (1981), 95 Ill.App.3d 1013, 1020, 51 Ill.Dec. 423, 428, 420 N.E.2d 837, 842, appeal denied, 85 Ill.2d 572.) However, evidence of bias, interest, or motive must not be remote or un......
  • People v. Sims
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2000
    ...gain or lose by his testimony.'" Triplett, 108 Ill.2d at 475-76,92 Ill.Dec. 454,485 N.E.2d 9, quoting People v. Phillips, 95 Ill.App.3d 1013, 1020, 51 Ill.Dec. 423, 420 N.E.2d 837 (1981). Therefore, the evidence used to establish bias, interest or motive should be timely, unequivocal and di......
  • People v. Frieberg
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1992
    ...not be remote or uncertain." (Triplett, 108 Ill.2d at 475-76, 92 Ill.Dec. 454, 485 N.E.2d 9, quoting People v. Phillips (1981), 95 Ill.App.3d 1013, 1020, 51 Ill.Dec. 423, 420 N.E.2d 837; see also People v. Rainone (1988), 176 Ill.App.3d 35, 40, 125 Ill.Dec. 617, 530 N.E.2d 1026; People v. S......
  • People v. Kluppelberg
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 28, 1993
    ...trial. Evidence of prior misconduct may be used to show bias, interest, or motive to testify falsely. (People v. Phillips (1981), 95 Ill.App.3d 1013, 51 Ill.Dec. 423, 420 N.E.2d 837.) Such evidence must give rise to the inference that the witness has something to gain or lose by his testimo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT