People v. Piscotti
| Citation | 91 Ill.Dec. 81,136 Ill.App.3d 420,483 N.E.2d 363 |
| Decision Date | 30 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-0829,84-0829 |
| Parties | , 91 Ill.Dec. 81 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph PISCOTTI, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Charles A. Pat Boyle, Charles A. Boyle & Associates, Ltd., Barry A. Spevack, Monico & Pavich Ltd., Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
Richard M. Daley, State's Atty. of Cook County (Michael E. Shabat, Peter D. Fischer, Timothy W. Heath, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of murder and aggravated arson and sentenced to consecutive terms of 40 and 20 years, respectively. On appeal, he contends that (1) his inculpatory statements should have been suppressed; (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial The charges arose from the strangulation death of Karen Przekwis (Karen) and the subsequent arson of her apartment. At the pre-trial hearing on defendant's motion to suppress certain statements he made, Officer Vallandingham testified that when he and his partner, Officer Riordan, went to defendant's home--at about 4 p.m. on the day after the murder--and asked him if he would be willing to answer some questions about Karen's fiance, Rick Sanders, he voluntarily agreed to accompany them to the police station. Upon arriving there, defendant was placed in an interview room, but was neither handcuffed nor otherwise restrained during the initial interview, which lasted until about 5:30 p.m. when technicians from the Bomb and Arson Unit arrived and tested defendant for smoke and accellerant fumes. He did not question defendant again until about 8:30 p.m., prior to which he brought him a sandwich and a can of soda and informed him of his Miranda rights. Defendant did not request an attorney or ask for permission to telephone his father. At approximately 10 p.m., he readvised defendant of his Miranda rights after which defendant voluntarily gave a statement regarding the murder. He then called the assistant State's Attorney and, at about 11:30 p.m., handcuffed defendant--for the first time--to a ring on the wall of the interview room. At no time did he, Riordan or anyone else in his presence strike defendant, threaten to beat or kill him if he refused to confess or promise to arrange for his probation if he did.
[91 Ill.Dec. 85] misconduct throughout trial and during closing arguments; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.
Officer Riordan also testified that no one ever hit defendant or threatened him in order to extract a confession or made any promises regarding probation in exchange therefor. Although he did tell defendant's father that their only purpose in asking defendant to accompany them to the police station was to question him about Rick Sanders, he did not recall also telling him that he need not come along because defendant would be driven home within an hour. He acknowledged speaking to defendant's father on the telephone later that evening while defendant was being questioned and then again at about 4 a.m. when he called to notify him that defendant had confessed to and was being charged with this murder. He also spoke to defendant's family when they came to the police station requesting to see defendant, but he did not promise them that they would be able to do so.
Assistant State's Attorney Morask testified that he arrived at the police station at about 2 a.m., identified himself to defendant, gave him the standard Miranda warnings and inquired as to his treatment by the police. Defendant responded that he understood his constitutional rights, had been treated well by the police and was willing to give a statement; he did not, however, request to speak to an attorney or make any telephone calls. Neither he nor anyone else, to his knowledge, struck or threatened defendant or promised him leniency in return for a confession.
Doctor Tulsiak testified that defendant was brought to the Mercy Hospital emergency room at about 7:15 p.m. on April 29, 1983, complaining of upper abdominal pain. However, the results of the physical examination he performed disclosed nothing to account therefor, and when he asked defendant whether he had fallen or been struck, defendant responded in the negative. He saw no cuts, bruises or scratches on defendant's body nor any blood on or around his mouth and indicated on his report that defendant was alert and in no apparent distress.
Felix Piscotti, defendant's father, testified that although he told Officers Vallandingham and Riordan that he wished to accompany defendant to the police station, they discouraged him, saying that defendant would be driven home within an hour. Two hours later, he sent his younger son to the police station to find out why defendant had not yet returned home, but the police chased him out without an explanation.
[91 Ill.Dec. 86] When he and his wife went there, at about 8 p.m., Riordan, who looked very untidy and had blood on his shirt, told them that they could not see defendant because he was still being questioned but that he was not being charged with anything and would return home soon. He called the station twice more that evening but [136 Ill.App.3d 426] each time was told that defendant was busy and could not come to the telephone. The first time he was allowed to speak to his son was at about 5:30 the following morning when Riordan called to tell him that defendant had confessed to this murder. Later that morning, he went to the lockup where defendant was being held but was told that he could not see him until after the change of shifts. Describing defendant's appearance when he was finally allowed to see him--at about 2 p.m.--Mr. Piscotti stated that there were red marks on his shoulders, chest and across the left side of his chin, his teeth were missing and his mouth was bloody. Joanne Piscotti, defendant's mother, was not at home when he left the house with the police, but her testimony was otherwise essentially the same as that of her husband.
Jerome Bokina testified that when he saw defendant at the police station at about 3 a.m., he was handcuffed and slumped over a table, his eyes were full of tears and there was blood on the left side of his mouth. On cross-examination, Bokina conceded that he had not mentioned the blood when he talked to the assistant State's Attorney the previous day.
Defendant testified that when he arrived at the police station, he was photographed, placed in an interview room and then questioned about Rick Sanders. After two officers from the Bomb and Arson Unit tested him for smoke and/or accellerant fumes, he asked to be allowed to go home or at least telephone his parents, but Riordan ordered him to sit down, told him that he could not make any telephone calls, handcuffed him to the wall and resumed the interrogation. Later that evening, the officers placed him in a different room, handcuffed him again and then asked him detailed questions about this murder. When he told them that he was at home that night and that he knew nothing about the crime, Riordan struck him in the face. He then refused to answer any more questions and requested to speak to an attorney or to his father but was not allowed to do so. When Riordan left the room, Vallandingham advised him to "make it easy" on himself by cooperating. In addition to Riordan, two other officers, whose names he did not know, also struck him several times while Vallandingham and Riordan were out of the room. At about 11 p.m., Riordan hit him on the side of his face with a revolver, chipping two of his teeth--which were later removed by a dentist at the jail--and causing him to bleed. Riordan also put a gun to his head and threatened to kill him, saying, "The bitch is dead, we want somebody to take the rap" after which he promised him that if he confessed he would receive probation. Although he told them that he would not confess because he did not kill Karen, after repeated threats, which caused him to fear for his life and the well-being of his family, he gave them the statement they demanded. He denied telling the assistant State's Attorney that the police treated him well, testifying that he was repeatedly struck about the head, chest, arms, back and thighs and was given only one can of soda throughout the several hours of interrogation. After speaking to his father at about 5 a.m., he was left handcuffed to the wall by both arms until being transported to the lockup. He told the guard there that he had had an accident and was in pain and, later, that he had been abused and wanted to see a doctor, but it was not until 6 or 7 hours later that a police officer he knew arranged for him to be taken to the hospital. Although the doctor who examined him commented that he looked like he had been in a fight, he did not tell him that the police attacked him because the two officers who brought him to the hospital were in the examining room and he was afraid that they too would beat him once they left the hospital.
On cross-examination, defendant stated that altogether, he was struck 15 to 20 times, including 4 or 5 times in the head with a billy club, 2 or 3 times in the face and once across the mouth with a gun. He explained that although he had marks on his face therefrom, they were covered by his beard and, therefore, not visible in the photographs which had been taken the following night at the county jail. He told Doctor Tulsiak that he was hit and showed him the cracked teeth but did not tell him how it happened; he did, however, tell the dentist who treated him at the jail that the police struck him. After arguments by counsel, defendant's motion to suppress his statements was denied by the trial court.
At trial, Karen's mother, Theresa Przekwis,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baugh
...the trial court's ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the defendant. People v. Piscotti, 136 Ill.App.3d 420, 439-440, 91 Ill.Dec. 81, 483 N.E.2d 363 (1985). Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affect......
-
People v. Coleman
... ... We do not condone prosecutorial misconduct and we have consistently and adamantly condemned it. (People v. Starks (1983), 116 Ill.App.3d 384, 71 Ill.Dec. 931, 451 N.E.2d 1298; People v. Piscotti (1985), ... Page 607 ... [128 Ill.Dec. 425] 136 Ill.App.3d 420, 444-54, 91 Ill.Dec. 81, 483 N.E.2d 363; People v. Clark (1983), 114 Ill.App.3d 252, 70 Ill.Dec. 48, 448 N.E.2d 926; People v. Brown (1983), 113 Ill.App.3d 625, 69 Ill.Dec. 576, 447 N.E.2d 1011.) The prosecutor's responsibility ... ...
-
People v. Henderson
... ... First, the question to Tuider about whether defendant became a "suspect" after the police talked to Alonzo was invited by defense counsel's cross-examination [142 Ill.2d 303] of Tuider. (See, e.g., People v. Piscotti (1985), 136 Ill.App.3d 420, 91 Ill.Dec. 81, 483 ... Page 1256 ... [154 Ill.Dec. 807] N.E.2d 363 (in closing argument, prosecutor could properly comment on defense theory of case that police fabricated evidence).) Second, the questions and answers allowably explained to the jury the steps ... ...
-
People v. Frisby
...basis for the prosecutor's remarks in his opening statement and the comments therefore were proper. People v. Piscotti (1985), 136 Ill.App.3d 420, 91 Ill.Dec. 81, 483 N.E.2d 363; People v. Wallace (1981), 100 Ill.App.3d 424, 55 Ill.Dec. 692, 426 N.E.2d The State contends that the prosecutor......