People v. Rainge, 79-565

Decision Date22 February 1983
Docket NumberNo. 79-565,79-565
Citation68 Ill.Dec. 87,445 N.E.2d 535,112 Ill.App.3d 396
Parties, 68 Ill.Dec. 87 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie RAINGE and Kenneth Adams, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Steven Clark and Martin Carlson, Asst. State Appellate Defenders, Chicago, for defendants-appellants.

Richard M. Daley, State's Atty., Cook County, Chicago (Michael E. Shabat and Kevin Sweeney, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

CAMPBELL, Justice, delivered the revised opinion of the court upon consideration of defendants' petition for rehearing:

Defendant Willie Rainge was convicted of the murders and aggravated kidnappings of Lawrence Lionberg and Carol Schmal and the rape of Ms. Schmal and was sentenced to concurrent terms of natural life imprisonment for each of the murders, 60 years for each of the aggravated kidnappings and 60 years for rape. Defendant Kenneth Adams was convicted of the murders of Lionberg and Schmal and the rape of Ms. Schmal and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 75 years for each of the murders and 60 years for rape.

On appeal, we are presented with seventeen issues which are raised by one of the defendants alone or by both defendants. Defendant Rainge alone raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) whether he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel; (3) whether he was denied his right to a public trial by the trial court's exclusion of the press and general public from the courtroom during the testimony of a rebuttal witness for the State; (4) whether he was denied his right to a fair trial by the State's failure to inform defense counsel of the existence of a rebuttal witness until shortly before the witness was called to testify; (5) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing through counsel's failure to advise Paula Gray, a codefendant, to invoke her fifth amendment rights and thereby preclude the State from using her out-of-court statements as evidence in aggravation against him; (6) whether the statute authorizing a sentence of natural life imprisonment violates article I, section 11, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; (7) whether the trial court erred in its reliance upon the hearsay statement of Paula Gray, a codefendant, in determining his sentence; and (8) whether the sentences imposed for the aggravated kidnappings exceed the maximum authorized term.

Defendant Adams alone raises the following issues: (9) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (10) whether the trial court erred in its instruction of the jury on circumstantial evidence; and (11) whether the sentences imposed upon him violate the constitutionally-mandated objective of restoration to useful citizenship.

Both defendants Rainge and Adams raise the following issues: (12) whether they were denied their right to a fair trial when they were tried simultaneously before two juries with Paula Gray, a codefendant accused of the same crimes as defendant herein; (13) whether the admission of hearsay testimony concerning hair sample comparisons by an expert witness, coupled with the State's comments on this testimony during closing argument, was "plain error" which denied defendants a fair determination of their guilt or innocence; (14) whether the trial court erred in its failure to conduct a full hearing concerning the existence of a prior written statement allegedly made by a witness for the State; (15) whether the trial court erred in permitting the jury to view the crime scene and in instructing the jury to consider the view as evidence; (16) whether they were denied their right to a fair trial by the State's closing argument; and (17) whether the trial court erred in sentencing defendants to extended terms where neither defendant had previously been convicted of a felony.

The record discloses that on May 11, 1978, Carol Schmal was visiting her boyfriend, Lawrence Lionberg, at a gas station in Homewood, Illinois, where Lionberg was employed. At approximately 2:15 a.m., two friends of Lionberg and Schmal left the gas station after visiting with them for about thirty minutes. The manager of the station testified that he arrived at the station at approximately 6:30 a.m., and found it unattended and in a state of disarray. At about 8:00 a.m., Investigator Patrick Pastirik of the Cook County Sheriff's Police arrived at the scene in response to the manager's call. At the time he arrived, a uniformed officer was present. Pastirik stated that he and other investigators who also had arrived searched the station and the surrounding area and did not find anything. Subsequently, Pastirik searched an automobile which was parked in front of the station and discovered a purse on the front seat. Upon examination of the purse contents, Pastirik found a driver's license issued to Carol Schmal. Pastirik went to the Schmal residence and spoke with Ms. Schmal's father who told Pastirik that he had last seen his daughter the previous evening with Lionberg. For the remainder of the day, Pastirik and his partner spoke with friends and relatives of the couple in an attempt to ascertain information about what might have happened to them.

Charles McCraney, a jazz guitarist, testified that in the early morning hours of May 11, 1978, he was composing music and playing his guitar in the downstairs living room of his townhouse at 1533 Hammond Lane. McCraney stated that the back of the townhouse faced Hammond Lane and that the front of his home overlooked a courtyard between his building and the buildings on Cannon Lane. McCraney stated that he periodically would go upstairs and look out the back window to observe his automobile because he was afraid that the car might be vandalized or stolen. McCraney testified that there were no lights on in the upstairs floor of his home and he could see into the area of Hammond Lane because the area near the building was lit and there was a street light.

At approximately 3:00 a.m., as McCraney was checking his automobile, he saw a red Toyota which had rear-end damage and black racing stripes and which was driven by Dennis Williams pull up and back into a position next to defendant Kenneth Adam's beige Toyota. Adams' vehicle and a blue Chevrolet were parked in front of the Gray residence which was four doors west from McCraney's home. McCraney stated that he had seen the two Toyotas in the area during the day and night for the two weeks that he had resided on Hammond Lane. Approximately ten to fifteen minutes later, McCraney went upstairs to check on his automobile and observed a yellow Vega which was operated by defendant Willie Rainge "[come] in like a low-flying jet" and pull up to the side of the red Toyota. McCraney stated that he also had seen the yellow Vega in the area during the prior two weeks. After a few minutes McCraney observed the red Toyota pull away from the parking space and stop under a streetlight on Hammond Lane. McCraney stated that Williams got out and broke the light with a rock. He stated that Williams then drove the car into a parking space which was next to Rainge's Vega. He testified that he saw Rainge leave his automobile and enter the red Toyota which was then driven away east on Hammond Lane.

McCraney stated that he went to check his automobile and observed Paula Gray and another sitting in the blue Chevrolet which was parked in front of the Gray residence. Upon returning to his townhouse, McCraney heard the sound of a car which was stuck in the mud on Cannon Lane. McCraney went upstairs and saw Williams' red Toyota stuck in the mud in the gangway next to the building at 1528 Cannon Lane. McCraney testified that he then went to the window that overlooked Hammond Lane and saw the driver and three persons, one of whom he identified as defendant Adams, exit the beige Toyota and run through a gangway and an abandoned townhouse to Cannon Lane. McCraney then relocated so that he could view the buildings on Cannon Lane and the courtyard and saw the group which had run from Hammond Lane to Cannon Lane join the group which had exited the red Toyota which since had been freed from the mud. He stated that this group of six to eight people entered the building at 1528 Cannon Lane from the courtyard entrance. McCraney testified that he recognized defendants Rainge, Adams and Williams as three of those who entered the building. McCraney stated that he did not see any members of this group during the remainder of the early morning hours. Approximately an hour and a half later, McCraney heard a gunshot from the direction of 1528 Cannon Lane. McCraney stated that the shot had been fired indoors because of the echo. He testified that he took no action after he heard the shot because it was commonplace to hear guns being fired in the area.

On cross-examination, McCraney stated that he did not see any white persons or females among the group that entered the building at 1528 Cannon Lane. McCraney testified that the only person that he would positively identify as one of the persons who entered the building at 1528 Cannon Lane was Dennis Williams. He also stated that the last time he positively could state that he saw defendant Adams was when he saw Adams exit the car and run toward the building.

Later that morning, McCraney stated that while he was talking to the janitor outside his building, he saw Williams drive up in the red Toyota, stop under the light that Williams had broken earlier and kick the glass from the street. He stated that Williams then parked his car in front of the Gray residence.

On the morning of May 12, 1978, McCraney stated that he was speaking with the janitor of the building when a neighborhood woman screamed at the janitor that her children had found a dead man. McCraney followed the woman and saw...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Sanchez v. Chappell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 22 d3 Julho d3 2015
    ... ... People v. Sanchez , 12 Cal.4th 1 (1995). The California Supreme Court denied petition for rehearing but ... Page 79 Williams , 93 Ill.2d 309 (1982) and People v. Rainge , 112 Ill.App.3d 396 (1983). Petitioner was aware of the possible problems with Toton's continued ... ...
  • People v. Sanchez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 14 d4 Dezembro d4 1995
    ... ... (People v. Williams (1982) 93 Ill.2d 309, 67 Ill.Dec. 97, 444 N.E.2d 136 (hereafter Williams ); People v. Rainge and Adams (1983) 112 Ill.App.3d 396, 68 Ill.Dec. 87, 445 N.E.2d 535 (hereafter Rainge ).) ...         In Williams, a jury convicted the ... ...
  • State v. Hunt
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 9 d5 Junho d5 1989
    ... ...         Like the general population in our county, the people, I'm sure on this panel, probably have widely differing opinions. Some of you may believe that a ... See, e.g., People v. Rainge, 112 Ill.App.3d 396, 68 Ill.Dec. 87, 92, 445 N.E.2d 535, 550 (1983). This, however, is not a ... ...
  • Adkins v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 9 d5 Fevereiro d5 2001
    ... ... We have made a diligent effort to locate people from his home state of Texas to come to these proceedings for the purpose of the sentence hearing ... Rainge (1983), 112 Ill. App.3d 396, 68 Ill.Dec. 87, 445 N.E.2d 535 (same); cf., People v. Williams ... ...
  • 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