People v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 31 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-2050,85-2050 |
| Citation | 111 Ill.Dec. 345,159 Ill.App.3d 142,512 N.E.2d 734 |
| Parties | , 111 Ill.Dec. 345 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Troy PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Steven Clark, Deputy Defender, Patricia Unsinn, Asst. Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for Phillips.
Richard M. Daley, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago (Thomas V. Gainer, Jr., Kenneth T. McCurry, Paul A. Tanzillo, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 38 years. He appeals urging the following: (1) his right to due process was violated by the denial of his request that the jury be instructed that it might convict him of voluntary manslaughter if it found he acted under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation; (2) his right to due process and the right to a trial by jury were denied when the trial court refused to require the jury to return a verdict as to the offense of voluntary manslaughter; (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a photograph of the deceased which depicted a surgical incision; (5) he was prejudiced and denied a fair trial by the prosecutorial comments during closing argument; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a term of imprisonment of 38 years for murder.
We reverse and remand.
Testimony at the trial established the following. On February 27, 1984, the defendant, who worked in a kitchen at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, had an argument with his supervisor, Donald Roberts, at work. It is undisputed that defendant believed Roberts had been unfairly harassing him about his work performance. The following day the defendant did not go to work because he was "still angry" at his supervisor and when defendant returned on February 29, 1984, he was assigned to work in the dishroom. He changed into his white kitchen uniform and took a pair of rubber gloves to the dishroom. He noticed Roberts sitting in his office while on his way to the cafeteria to eat. The outer wall of the office was glass from about three feet to the top. Before reaching the dishroom, the defendant stopped into the salad room to see a co-worker. However, the co-worker had not yet arrived. While in the salad room, the defendant saw a knife on top of a table which he put into his pants, concealing the knife from view. He then went to Roberts' office.
Before entering the office, defendant placed the knife over his shirt so Roberts would see it. Roberts was on the telephone. Freda Garray, a supervisor at Northwestern Hospital, testified that at about 6:30 a.m. on February 29, 1984, she received a call from Roberts asking for help for his shift. As they were talking Roberts told her to hold on but he did not push the hold button. She then heard Roberts say, Another witness, Irma Powers, who was in the office across the hall from Roberts also saw defendant enter the office while Roberts was on the telephone. She saw the defendant hitting Roberts in the chest with something. Another witness, Zephyr Woods, was working four to five feet away from the office when she heard a lot of screams. She turned around and saw defendant in the office with a blade in his raised hand. Another witness, Beatrice Asa-Atiemosh was working in the kitchen area when she heard shouting. As she got closer to Roberts' office, she saw the defendant standing over the victim making a stabbing motion. Roberts had blood on his face while he was on the floor trying to get up. Dr. John Ruge, who was on his way to the kitchen area, also heard people screaming. He approached Roberts' office where he saw defendant with a knife in his hand and his hand raised and Roberts was slumped over the desk.
About 6:40 a.m. security guards Ron Gann and James Gray received a radio message of a man with a knife in the Passavant kitchen. As Gann approached the office he saw blood on the walls and Roberts "crumpled on the floor." Both of them saw the defendant with a knife in his hand and saw him come down with the knife and stab the victim in the lower right portion of his back. Gann then opened the office door and yelled to the defendant in order to divert his attention away from Roberts. After opening the door he saw blood on the desk, the walls, and on Roberts. As Gann entered the office the defendant stepped over Roberts and started towards the door with the knife in his hand. As he approached Gann, Gann put his arms up and backed out the doorway, trying to give the defendant a path to walk out.
About this time, security guards Doughty and Luke, who had also heard the radio broadcast of a man with a knife in the kitchen, arrived at Roberts' office. When they arrived they saw the defendant coming out of the office with a knife in his hand and blood on his uniform. As they approached the defendant, the defendant told Doughty to "get the f___ out of the way or I'll do the same thing to you as I did to him," and "They're not going to f___ with me no more." At this point, Doughty stepped back to let defendant out.
As he left the office defendant passed the security guards, went out of the kitchen area, out of the hospital and on to the street. He was pursued by security guards Gann, Doughty and Luke. Once on the street Luke took out his pistol and ordered the defendant to halt and to drop his knife. Defendant was handcuffed and taken into custody. At this time, Luke noticed that the defendant was wearing two rubber gloves covered with blood.
After taking possession of the knife, the guards took the defendant to the hospital security office. Defendant was then advised of his Miranda rights and indicated that he understood them. He told Gann and Luke that "they kept harassing me everyday" and "they kept making fun of me." The defendant was then transported to Area Six Violent Crimes where he was interviewed by Police detectives Villardita and Whalen and again advised of his Miranda rights before he was questioned. Defendant again indicated he understood his rights. He then told the detectives what happened in a narrative form and this interview lasted about 15 or 20 minutes.
At about 1:00 p.m. Assistant State's Attorney Lawrence Lykowski arrived at Area Six and interviewed the defendant in the presence of Villardita. Defendant was again advised of his Miranda rights before speaking to Lykowski and again said he understood his rights. He also was presented a form containing the Miranda rights and was asked to sign this form if he understood his rights. Defendant read those rights out loud and signed the form. Defendant then told Lykowski and Villardita in narrative form what happened that morning in the hospital. Villardita testified that the defendant told Lykowski the same story as he told earlier to Detective Whalen and himself. This interview lasted about 45 minutes.
At about 4:00 p.m., Lykowski and Villardita returned to the interview room and again spoke to the defendant. He was again advised of his rights and indicated he understood them. Lykowski then told the defendant that he wanted to reduce the defendant's statement about the incident to writing and that he would write down everything the defendant said and that when the defendant was finished talking, he would give the defendant the written statement so that he could make any necessary changes after which he would be asked to sign the statement. Defendant agreed and again told Lykowski and Villardita what happened. He told them that on Monday he and Roberts had an argument, that he went home angry and on Tuesday he was still under pressure and called in sick, that after arriving at work on Wednesday and changing into his uniform, he walked through the kitchen and saw Roberts sitting at his desk, that when he saw Roberts he again became upset and he walked into the kitchen, got a butcher knife, and put the knife into the waistband of his trousers. Initially he covered the knife with his shirt so that it was concealed and he had gloves on his hands. He then went into Roberts' office and closed the door. He asked Roberts why he was being hassled and Roberts told him to go do his work. Roberts did not have anything in his hands and before he knew it, he drew the knife and as the two scuffled, he killed Roberts. He looked up and everybody was around him. He still had the knife and panicked. He ran out of the building. A security guard followed him and arrested him on the street. They then told him Roberts was dead. After writing down the statement Lykowski gave the written statement to defendant for him to read and make any corrections and after he read his statement aloud three times he made changes on each of the three pages and then signed the statement along with Lykowski and Villardita.
Dr. Donoghue, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of Cook County, testified that he supervised the postmortem examination of the victim and found 14 stab wounds, four of which would have caused Roberts' death. He also testified that he found defensive wounds on Roberts' hands.
At the close of the prosecution's case in chief, the defendant's bloody uniform, the knife, one of the rubber gloves, various photographs of Roberts and his office, and the written statement signed by defendant were admitted into evidence.
The defendant then testified on his own behalf. His testimony contradicted much of the evidence presented by the State including his signed statement. He testified that before entering Roberts' office, he placed his shirt behind the knife so Roberts would see it. He wanted to frighten Roberts into listening to him. Roberts was at his desk going over the work schedule. Defendant asked him why he was being constantly harassed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Batchelor
......Garlick (1977), 46 Ill.App.3d 216, 224, 4 Ill.Dec. 746, 360 N.E.2d 1121), when the photos depicted grisly autopsy details without shedding light on a disputed issue (People v. Fierer (1987), 151 Ill.App.3d 649, 657, 104 Ill.Dec. 879, 503 N.E.2d 594; People v. Phillips (1987), 159 Ill.App.3d 142, 149, 111 Ill.Dec. 345, 512 N.E.2d 734). Photographs of the dead victim are permitted, however, to show the condition of the victim after the crime. People v. Kubat (1983), 94 Ill.2d 437, 494-95, 69 Ill.Dec. 30, 447 N.E.2d 247; People v. Williams (1983), 97 Ill.2d ......
-
People v. Camacho
...instruction.¶ 40 Camacho relies on People v. Leonard, 83 Ill.2d 411, 47 Ill.Dec. 353, 415 N.E.2d 358 (1980), and People v. Phillips, 159 Ill.App.3d 142, 111 Ill.Dec. 345, 512 N.E.2d 734 (1987) to support his argument. In Leonard, 83 Ill.2d at 414–15, 47 Ill.Dec. 353, 415 N.E.2d 358, the def......
-
People v. McDonald
...66 Defendant also cites People v. Robinson , 189 Ill.App.3d 323, 136 Ill.Dec. 744, 545 N.E.2d 268 (1989), and People v. Phillips , 159 Ill.App.3d 142, 111 Ill.Dec. 345, 512 N.E.2d 734 (1987). In Robinson , there was evidence of a violent, heated argument between the defendant and the victim......
-
People v. Randall
...909, 967 N.E.2d 939. Accordingly, we decline to disregard Lauderdale on this basis.¶ 51 Defendant relies on People v. Phillips, 159 Ill.App.3d 142, 111 Ill.Dec. 345, 512 N.E.2d 734 (1987) to argue that the fact that he held a dangerous weapon is not alone sufficient to preclude the possibil......