People v. Shiflet, 2-82-0245

• Decision Date: 20 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 2-82-0245,2-82-0245
• Citation: 465 N.E.2d 942,80 Ill.Dec. 596,125 Ill.App.3d 161
• Parties: , 80 Ill.Dec. 596 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John SHIFLET, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 942

465 N.E.2d 942

125 Ill.App.3d 161, 80 Ill.Dec. 596

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.John SHIFLET, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-82-0245.

Appellate Court of Illinois Second District.

June 20, 1984.

Rehearing Denied July 20, 1984.

G. Joseph Weller, DeputyState Appellate Defender, Josette Skelnik, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for defendant-appellant.

J. Michael Fitzsimmons, State's Atty., Barbara A. Preiner, Thomas L. Knight, Diana Fischer-Woods, Asst. State's Attys., Wheaton, for plaintiff-appellee.

NASH, Justice:

After trial by jury defendant, John Shiflet, was convicted of the murder of his wife, Rose Shiflet, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 9-2(a)(1)) and was sentenced to imprisonment for his natural life.

He appeals, contending that the trial court erred: (1) by failing to exclude evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant obtained in violation of defendant's attorney-client privilege; (2) by denying defendant an evidentiary hearing of his assertion that the complaints for two earlier search warrants under which evidence was seized contained false statements; (3) by the admission in evidence of a statement by defendant which the State had failed to disclose prior to trial; (4) by the admission of evidence relating to the victim's blood for lack of foundation and proof of chain of custody; (5) by admission of certain building records without adequate foundation; and (6) by denying defendant due process and equal protection of the law in imposing a sentence of natural life imprisonment.

Rose Shiflet was reported missing by her husband, defendant herein, on the evening of September 30, 1980, and her body was discovered early the next morning in an unincorporated area near Naperville about three miles from the apartment she had shared with defendant in Lisle.She was wearing a shirt and jeans and was barefoot; an investigator noted her hands and feet were very clean, there were blood stains on the shirt and a black tar-like substance on the jeans.He then went to the Shiflet apartment complex where he found a blood-spotted leaf lying next to an automobile identified as belonging to the victim and blood spots on the rear portion of the car and also on the steps leading to the Shiflet apartment.

Officers had a conversation with defendant later that morning when they asked him to relate the events of the previous evening.Defendant stated that when she arrived home from work about 4:45 p.m., his wife was upset over an argument with her father and a kidney infection.They talked for over an hour and he advised her to seek professional help, which she rejected.At about 8 p.m., while they were watching a television movie, he stated she became emotional and threw a glass of iced tea on the floor saying, "I've got to get out of here"; she then left the apartment.When Rose didn't return, defendant stated he drove around looking for her then called her sister and brought her to the apartment where decedent's mother later joined them.Defendant stated he called the sheriff's office at 11:30 p.m. to report his wife missing and did so again at 5 a.m., when an officer was dispatched to take a missing person report.

Joan Alleva, decedent's mother, testified defendant called her between 7:30 and 8 a.m. on September 30 and requested that she not call her daughter that evening, as was her custom, because defendant wished to have a serious discussion with Rose without interruption.Defendant also called decedent's sister, Lynda Alleva, at 4:45 that afternoon with the same request.

Lynda Alleva testified she had also received a call from defendant at 10 p.m. on September 30, advising her Rose had been missing since leaving the apartment at 8 o'clock.Lynda told defendantshe was coming over and he at first refused to let her come, but then agreed to pick her up.Defendant arrived at Lynda's home, a 20-minute drive, at 11:10 p.m., saying he had been searching for Rose.On the trip back to defendant's apartment, he told her that Rose had become upset and, after throwing tea on the floor, left saying she was going to a store for ice cream and would return later.When they arrived at the apartment, defendant went into the bathroom where he remained for quite a while and Lynda could hear water running.When he came out defendant had changed his pants and he then pointed out a wet area on the rug where he said the tea had been spilled.

Joan Alleva came over later and, after calling the hospitals, she and Lynda decided to walk around looking while defendant remained in the apartment by the telephone.As they left the apartment, defendant advised them to be careful on the stairs as he had slipped and scratched his knuckles on the brick wall.He also told them the scratches and gouges on his arms they had observed were caused when he looked in bramble bushes for Rose.

After walking about the complex for 10 minutes the women returned for the car and found defendant at the rear of it with the trunk open; he then closed the trunk and they all went into the apartment.The women noticed Rose's glasses on a bookcase and were disturbed because she could not see well without them, especially at night.At about 5 a.m. the police were called again and at 9 a.m. they were informed Rose's body had been found.That evening Joan Alleva saw Rose's body at a funeral home and noticed her fingernails had been cut very short, although she had always worn them long.

Dennis Varhol, the Shiflet's next door neighbor, testified he heard whimpering and hitting noises from the Shiflet's apartment at approximately 8:30 p.m. on September 30 which lasted for several minutes.

An autopsy of decedent's body disclosed a large wound on top of the head which penetrated to the skull.The physician testified such a wound bleeds profusely and as the victim's hair was not contaminated by blood, he concluded it had been washed.The doctor also noticed small scratches on the neck and hemorrhages of the skin of the face and neck.He expressed the opinion the victim died from loss of blood and that at least one-half of the blood volume was absent.The doctor also noted evidence of strangulation, but could not say it contributed to the death.The doctor was unable to take fingernail scrappings from the victim as the nails had been clipped too short, but did remove a tar-like substance from her body and drew two blood samples, one of which he gave to Thomas Duhig, a sheriff's evidence technician who was present at the autopsy.

At about noon on October 1, defendant attempted to remove his wife's car from its parking place near the apartment.When an officer stopped him defendant stated he was taking it on his attorney's advice, but was not permitted to do so.At 2:30 p.m. that day a vacant apartment below defendant's was searched by officers who found blood and matted hair in a closet and traces of blood on the bathroom fixtures.On October 1, search warrant No. 3218 was issued by the circuit court authorizing a search of defendant's apartment which was conducted at 5:45 p.m.; a pair of blue jeans and a shirt were seized.The pants were damp and benzidine tests conducted on stained areas were positive for the presence of blood.On October 2, search warrant No. 3215 was issued authorizing a search of Rose Shiflet's 1980 Chevrolet automobile.Positive test results for the presence of blood were obtained on several items including the trunk carpeting, plastic molding on the interior of the trunk, a tarp and on the handle of an axe.The officers also noted that the rubber molding around the lid had torn away and a tar-like substance was there seen which was similar to the substance found on Rose Shiflet's foot and hand.

At 8:30 p.m. on October 3, 1980, search warrant No. 3219 was issued authorizing a second search of defendant's apartment.On examining the living room carpet the officers noted that a section of it was stiff and cut the carpeting out at that spot, finding blood stains on the padding and flooring below.In addition, the officers seized a hair dryer bearing a blood stain, a vacuum cleaner bag and its contents, nail clippers, a towel, and a hammer to which human hair similar to the victim's had adhered.The evidence seized in the search was submitted to the DuPage County crime laboratory, the director of which testified in trial to having performed tests which determined that one of the hairs on the hammer was human, the ends crushed and it compared with that of decedent, although he could not say conclusively that the hairs were identical.Tests conducted on the hammer disclosed positive results for blood and he determined that type A human blood was present on Rose Shiflet's shirt, the samples taken from the trunk of her automobile, the blood spotted leaf found next to the car, the wallboard taken from the closet of the lower, vacant apartment, the blue jeans found in the bedroom of defendant's apartment, and on the padding and flooring from that apartment.He was unable to type the blood found on the carpeting although he determined it was human.He further testified that the tar-like substance removed from the victim's hand and foot were essentially the same in chemical composition as the sample removed from the rear of her automobile.This witness further testified that he had received a blood sample taken from the victim and determined that it was type A.He also discovered a nail clipping caught in the fibers of the carpeting removed from defendant's apartment and further clippings in the vacuum cleaner bag.

(1)

Search WarrantNo. 3219

Defendant contends first that the evidence seized from his apartment pursuant to search warrant No. 3219 should have been suppressed pursuant to his motion as the complaint and affidavit for search warrant were premised upon privileged information in violation of his attorney-client privilege.

At the hearing of the defendant's motion to suppress, evidence was...