People v. Phillips

Decision Date10 March 1989
Docket NumberNo. 86-2711,86-2711
Citation181 Ill.App.3d 144,536 N.E.2d 1242
Parties, 130 Ill.Dec. 31 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John M. PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Stevel Clark, Deputy Defender, Patricia Unsinn, Asst. Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Richard M. Daley, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago, of counsel, Kenneth T. McCurry, Vickie E. Voukidis, Joseph G. Howard, Asst. State's Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

Justice LORENZ delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, John M. Phillips, was convicted of aggravated kidnaping (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 10-2) and aggravated criminal sexual assault (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985 For reasons set forth below, we affirm.

[130 Ill.Dec. 32] ch. 38, par. 12-14), following a bench trial, and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of six and four years, respectively.

The following facts are undisputed. In the evening of June 23, 1985, Phillips met the complainant, M.B., and her friend, J.C., in Bootleggers, a singles' bar located near State and Division Streets in Chicago. After spending some time with Phillips, the two women accepted an invitation to go to his parked car for the purpose of indulging in illegal narcotics. M.B. got into the front passenger seat and J.C. got into the back seat behind Phillips. After lighting a marijuana cigarette, Phillips moved the car to a deserted area a short distance away.

Conflicting testimony as to subsequent events, as adduced at trial and pertinent to our disposition, is summarized below.

M.B. testified that Phillips parked the car, opened the glove box, and retrieved a mirror and knife. When she asked the purpose of the knife, Phillips related that it was "to cut up some cocaine." At that point, J.C. asked Phillips to take them back to their car. M.B. stated Phillips refused, but said he would "in five minutes." M.B. stated that Phillips then put the knife to her left side. M.B. stated J.C. again asked Phillips to take them back to their car but he again refused. However, Phillips let J.C. out of the car. M.B. testified she attempted to grab hold of the knife but Phillips held both of her hands to her side. She stated Phillips still held the knife to her side and she was afraid.

M.B. stated that when J.C. came around to the passenger side of the car, M.B. told her to get back into the car. At that point, M.B. stated, Phillips pushed the knife farther into her side and told J.C. to go away from the car so that he could "make out" with M.B. M.B. testified she was still afraid.

M.B. stated that when J.C. walked away, Phillips started the car and sped off. M.B. stated she begged Phillips to go back and get J.C. Phillips said they would go back and get her shortly.

Phillips pulled the car into an alley. M.B. stated that he pointed the knife at her and told her, "As soon as you f___ me and make me come, we will go back and get your girl friend." M.B. stated that Phillips removed her clothes, removed his own clothing, and forced her to submit to vaginal intercourse. During the act, she attempted to move her purse, which she was sitting on, because it was hurting her. M.B. stated Phillips again pulled out the knife and said, "I will f___ you with this knife if I have to. What are you doing? What are you going to get in your purse?" She testified that Phillips also forced her to orally copulate him.

M.B. stated that when, at one point, she had to urinate, Phillips allowed her to do so at the side of the car, but kept his hand on her head to restrain her from leaving. When they got back in the car and Phillips tried to force M.B. to orally copulate him again, she opened the car door and ran, naked, down the alley. M.B. stated that at the mouth of the alley she saw a car with headlights on and motioned the driver to stop. The car was a marked police squad car. M.B. pointed out defendant's car to the officers and got into the squad car. M.B. stated defendant started his car and sped out of the alley. The police gave chase and eventually captured Phillips.

On cross-examination, M.B. admitted that she and J.C. willingly accepted Phillips initial invitation to go to his car to smoke marijuana. She also admitted that later, when Phillips put the knife to her side, she did not tell him to take it away, but asked only what the knife was for. M.B. stated that Phillips "must have been" holding both of her hands with one of his hands while he restrained her because he kept the knife at her side. M.B. also stated that she recalled seeing the knife in Phillips' hand when he was removing her clothing.

On redirect examination, M.B. clarified that when J.C. got out of the car, M.B. reached her right hand over to get hold of the knife, but Phillips grabbed both of her hands.

J.C. testified on direct examination to the same facts leading up to her exit from On cross-examination, J.C. admitted that she was aided by a police officer in locating her car, but she did not express to him any concern for M.B.

[130 Ill.Dec. 33] Phillips' car. J.C. stated she eventually found her own car and, after unsuccessfully attempting to locate Phillips' car, [181 Ill.App.3d 148] she returned to Evanston where the women were staying.

Phillips testified to a substantially different scenario. Phillips stated that after the women got into his car, which was parked on Rush Street approximately four blocks away from the intersection of State and Division Streets, he lit a marijuana cigarette and drove to a location under elevated train tracks near Wells Street. Phillips stated that, there, he began to "chop up" cocaine on a mirror with the knife. All three partook of the cocaine. Phillips stated that J.C. asked to get out of the car to be "socially tactful" because she saw he and M.B. "making out" in the front seat. Phillips stated that he did not restrain M.B. by holding her hands or by holding a knife to her side.

Phillips testified he then moved the car to an alley located approximately five minutes away near Ashland Avenue and Augusta Boulevard. During the drive M.B. did not ask him to let her out of the car, but did express concern for J.C. While in the car in the alley, he and M.B. engaged in consensual foreplay and oral sex. Phillips stated they were in the alley for approximately 20 minutes. He stated that, there, M.B. again voiced concern for J.C. Phillips testified a car came down the alley and they could see lights. At that point, M.B. quickly exited the car. Phillips stated that when M.B. ran out of the car he panicked and drove down the alley. Although he noticed that it was a police squad car following him, he did not stop. He was eventually arrested after fleeing on foot.

Chicago police officer Wally Velez testified that at approximately 4:00 a.m. in the morning in question, he and his partner, Paul Brugger, were in a squad car on patrol, travelling eastbound on Augusta Boulevard. Velez testified that he observed M.B., naked, running toward the police car. The officers immediately pulled over to the side of the street and gave assistance. M.B. said she had been raped. Velez stated she was hysterical. When the officers heard the sound of screeching tires, and M.B. identified defendant's car as it came into view, the officers gave chase. The car stopped at a fence. Phillips, naked, exited, fleeing on foot. Velez found Phillips hiding under a porch a short distance away and arrested him. Velez testified that when he searched the car a short time later he found the knife in an open position.

OPINION

On appeal, Phillips contends that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Phillips argues, generally, that M.B.'s testimony was not sufficient to prove that her activity with Phillips was not consensual and that all of the circumstances preceding the sexual activity were consistent with a finding of consent.

It is the function of the trier of fact to weigh the evidence, resolve any apparent conflicts therein, and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. (People v. Nally (1985), 134 Ill.App.3d 865, 89 Ill.Dec. 630, 480 N.E.2d 1373.) In a criminal bench trial, these determinations are within the province of the trial judge. (People v. Clemons (1988), 175 Ill.App.3d 7, 124 Ill.Dec. 596, 529 N.E.2d 577; People v. Givens (1977), 46 Ill.App.3d 1035, 5 Ill.Dec. 348, 361 N.E.2d 671.) Furthermore, determination of the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence will not be reversed unless the evidence was so improbable as to create a reasonable doubt of guilt. (People v. Hall (1986), 114 Ill.2d 376, 102 Ill.Dec. 322, 499 N.E.2d 1335.) Thus, as the Illinois Supreme Court has noted, once the defendant has been found guilty in a criminal bench trial, the applicable standard of review is "whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." (Emphasis added.) (People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill.2d 237, 261, 87 Ill.Dec. 910, 919, 478 N.E.2d 267, 276, citing Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573.) Further, as in other criminal appeals, when reviewing a conviction for sexual assault, the testimony of a single witness, if it is positive and the witness credible, is sufficient to support the conviction, even though that testimony is contradicted by the accused. See People v. Glover (1971), 49 Ill.2d 78, 273 N.E.2d 367.

The trial judge below, in the exercise of proper duty, heard all of the witnesses and observed the evidence presented. The complainant testified that although she initially consented to enter Phillips' automobile, she was later restrained by Phillips against her will from leaving his car, was driven to an alley some distance away, and was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Acorn Corrugated Box Co. v. Illinois Human Rights Com'n
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 23 mars 1989
  • People v. Daniel
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 3 février 2000
    ... ... Guzman, 276 Ill.App.3d 750, 213 Ill.Dec. 247, 658 N.E.2d 1268 (1995), People v. Davis, 227 Ill.App.3d 476, 169 Ill.Dec. 613, 592 N.E.2d 100 (1992), People v. Charles, 217 Ill.App.3d 509, 160 Ill.Dec. 404, 577 N.E.2d 534 (1991), and People v. Phillips, 181 Ill. App.3d 144, 130 Ill.Dec. 31, 536 N.E.2d 1242 (1989) ), are distinguishable and not supportive of his argument. In each of those cases the court addressed the issue of whether and when an object can be considered a dangerous weapon, not whether a weapon must actually be possessed or ... ...
  • People v. Long
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 1 novembre 2017
  • People v. Charles
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 15 août 1991
    ... ... In any event there is no basis to reduce defendant's conviction given the facts of this case, which show that S.M. reasonably believed the knife to be a dangerous weapon. People v. Phillips (1989), 181 Ill.App.3d 144, 130 Ill.Dec. 31, 536 N.E.2d 1242 ...         In determining whether an instrument was a dangerous weapon, the supreme court has stated that " 'when the character of the weapon is doubtful or the question depends upon the manner of its use it is a question for ... ...
  • 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