People v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 18 September 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 79493,79493 |
| Citation | People v. Thomas, 178 Ill.2d 215, 687 N.E.2d 892, 227 Ill.Dec. 410 (Ill. 1997) |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 227 Ill.Dec. 410 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Christopher THOMAS, Appellant. |
Charles M. Schiedel, State Appellate Defender, Sup. Ct. Unit, Allen H. Andrews, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for Christopher Thomas.
Jim Ryan, Atty. Gen., Criminal Appeals Div., Chicago, State's Attorney, Lake County, Waukegan, for the People.
After a jury trial in the circuit court of Lake County, defendant, Christopher Thomas, was convicted of murder arising from the shooting death of Rafael Gasgonia.Defendant waived a jury for his capital sentencing hearing.The trial judge found defendant eligible for the death penalty based upon the statutory aggravating factor that the murder occurred during the course of a felony.720 ILCS 5/9-1(b)(6)(West 1994).After a hearing in aggravation and mitigation, the trial judge found that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude imposition of the death penalty.The trial judge accordingly sentenced defendant to death.Defendant's death sentence has been stayed pending direct review by this court.Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, § 4(b);134 Ill.2d Rs. 603, 609(a).We affirm.
At about 8:30 p.m. on October 25, 1994, Rafael Gasgonia died after he was shot once in the forehead at close range.The shooting occurred outside the Olan Mills studio in Waukegan, where Gasgonia worked as a delivery driver.A police investigation resulted in the arrests of defendant, Ricky Powers and Leon Tyler. Defendant was tried separately from Powers and Tyler.
Prior to trial, defendant's attorneys sought to suppress statements defendant made implicating himself in the shooting death of Gasgonia.Defendant contended that his statements were the result of physical and psychological coercion and therefore involuntary.After a hearing, the trial judge denied the motion to suppress and the case proceeded to trial.
The State first presented the testimony of four witnesses who were at the Olan Mills studio at the time of the shooting.Adela Lopez testified that she was working at the studio about 8:15 p.m., when Gasgonia left the studio through the back door to smoke a cigarette.Gasgonia immediately returned and interrupted her while she was on the phone, complaining that someone had tampered with his car.As Lopez ended her phone call, Gasgonia again left the store out the back door.Shortly thereafter, the back door burst open and Lopez observed a black man with his arm around Gasgonia's neck pulling him outside.Others at the studio attempted to assist Gasgonia, but the door was pulled shut from the outside and they could not force the door open.Lopez testified she then called the police while others ran out the front door to assist Gasgonia.While she was on the phone, she heard one loud pop.
Zulma Rivera testified that she was working at the Olan Mills studio when the back door burst open and she observed Gasgonia in a struggle with a black man.After unsuccessfully attempting to open the back door with the other employees, Rivera followed another employee, Erik Daniels, out the front door and around to the back of the building.Rivera testified that she saw Gasgonia leaning against his car with his hands in the air.Rivera further testified that she observed one man on Gasgonia's left, holding him down against the car and another standing directly in front of Gasgonia holding a gun.Rivera then heard a pop and saw Gasgonia slump to the ground.Rivera then ran back into the studio.Rivera testified that she gave the police a general description of the assailants, but she was unable to identify them.
Erick Daniels testified that he was working at the Olan Mills store when he heard a bang at the back door and Gasgonia call for help.After trying to open the back door, Daniels exited through the front door and ran around to the back of the building.Daniels testified that he observed one man holding the back door, another standing next to Gasgonia, and a third pointing a gun at Gasgonia's head.Daniels heard a pop and ran back inside the studio until the police arrived.
Daniels further testified that shortly after the shooting, the police brought two suspects to the police car in which he was sitting.Daniels testified that one suspect was too big, but he believed the second suspect was the shooter.Daniels testified that he did not remember the assailant's face, but he made that identification based on the black and white striped shirt the suspect was wearing and because the suspect's body build matched the shooter.
Karen Santiago testified that she was working at the store when she heard noises and saw the commotion at the back door.After unsuccessfully trying to push open the back door with the other employees, she followed Daniels out the front door and around to the back of the building.In the back of the building, Santiago saw one man hold Gasgonia while another man shot him.Santiago could not identify the shooter, but described him as having a thin or medium build, curly hair and wearing a blue, black and white shirt.
The State also presented the testimony of Steve Gonyo, who worked at the Jewel store across from the Olan Mills studio.Gonyo testified that on the night of the shooting at about 8:15 p.m., he saw three people standing around a grey Oldsmobile as he unloaded milk crates behind the Jewel store.One person approached him and asked for a screwdriver.Gonyo testified that he recognized one of the three as Ricky Powers, a person he knew from high school.The State further linked the Oldsmobile to Ricky Powers through Marcus Jenkins, who testified that he sold that Oldsmobile to Powers about two weeks prior to the shooting.
Rhonda Powers, Ricky's fiancee at the time of the murder, was also called by the State.Rhonda testified that sometime after 9 p.m. on October 25, 1994, both defendant and Tyler arrived at her home out of breath and red in the face.Upon further questioning by the State, Rhonda denied that defendant made any statements to her.The State then impeached Rhonda with handwritten, typed and videotaped statements which she admitted to making just days after the murder.In those statements, Rhonda told the police that defendant told her that their car ran out of gas at the Olan Mills store behind the Jewel and that he had shot a man in the face.
Rhonda also testified that Ricky arrived home shortly after the defendant and Tyler. Rhonda testified that Ricky noticed she was upset and he became irritated.Rhonda further testified that Ricky had an argument with defendant, but she denied knowing the subject matter of the argument.The State then impeached Rhonda with her prior statements in which she told the police that the reason Ricky was upset with defendant was because defendant told her about the shooting.The trial judge then gave a limiting instruction concerning the use of Rhonda's prior statement regarding what her husband said, which the defendant challenges on appeal.
On cross-examination, Rhonda claimed that the statements she made to the police were lies.Rhonda claimed that she told the police that defendant made those statements because she was angry with the defendant and wished to frame him for the murder.Additional facts concerning the use of Rhonda's prior inconsistent statements at trial will be provided as necessary to address defendant's challenges on appeal.
The State also presented the testimony of Detective James McCarthy, who identified photographs of the crime scene.The photographs showed Gasgonia lying next to his car with his wallet next to his chin.The photographs also depicted a light blue and grey Oldsmobile parked close to Gasgonia's car.Detective McCarthy described a search he conducted of the Oldsmobile and identified a cellular phone and radar detector he discovered in the trunk.Another witness testified that those items belonged to Gasgonia.
Delanda Ewing testified that she was with her boyfriend at about 8:30 p.m. on October 24, 1994, when he received a page.Her boyfriend returned the page and they both drove to a laundromat near the Jewel store and picked up Ricky, who was carrying a gas can.Ewing and her boyfriend then took Ricky to his home, where they found defendant and Tyler. Defendant, Tyler and Ricky then left with Ewing and her boyfriend.Ewing testified that during the drive defendant stated that "he smoked that mog" and that he threw the gun near Cinnamon Lake Towers.
Detective Kerkorian testified about obtaining statements from the defendant.Detective Kerkorian testified that he gave defendant his Miranda warnings and obtained a waiver of those rights.Defendant then gave an oral statement and also prepared a handwritten statement.Defendant also subsequently signed a typewritten statement that the police prepared from his oral statement.After obtaining the handwritten and typed statements, Detective Kerkorian and another officer also videotaped defendant identifying those statements.
Detective Kerkorian then read the typed statement to the jury.Defendant's statement provides that Ricky Powers and Tyler picked him up in a blue Oldsmobile.The three were cruising around when the car ran out of gas near the Jewel store.They attempted to get a screwdriver to steal another car, but they could not get one at Jewel.They walked around Jewel and discovered an unlocked red car near the Olan Mills studio.Tyler opened the door to the red car and removed a phone and they took it back to the Oldsmobile, placing it in the trunk.The three then returned to the red car and Thomas took the cord for the phone.
At the car, Tyler came up with a plan to rob someone and they hid in some nearby bushes waiting for a victim.At this time, a man came out of the Olan Mills store and walked...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Kutz
...be hearsay. Compare Hunt v. State, 744 So. 2d 851, 857 (Ala. 1999); Blecha v. People, 962 P.2d 931, 944 (Colo. 1998); People v. Thomas, 687 N.E.2d 892, 902 (Ill. 1997); Powell v. State, 714 N.E.2d 624, 627 (Ind. 1999); State v. Rawlings, 402 N.W.2d 406, 408-09 (Iowa 1987); Carlton v. State,......
-
People v. Fleming
...in original.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; People v. Thomas, 178 Ill.2d 215, 231–32, 227 Ill.Dec. 410, 687 N.E.2d 892 (1997). We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact on the weight to be given the evidence or the ......
-
People v. Simpson
...attempts to counter the voluminous number of appellate decisions rejecting its argument by claiming that in People v. Thomas, 178 Ill.2d 215, 227 Ill.Dec. 410, 687 N.E.2d 892 (1997), this court left open the question of how the personal knowledge requirement should be interpreted. We find t......
-
People v. Jones
...of incompetence. People v. Barrow, 133 Ill.2d 226, 247, 139 Ill.Dec. 728, 549 N.E.2d 240 (1989); see also People v. Thomas, 178 Ill.2d 215, 248, 227 Ill.Dec. 410, 687 N.E.2d 892 (1997) (a review of counsel's actions contains a strong presumption that the conduct fell within the parameters o......
-
Table of Cases
...Thill , 297 Ill App 3d 7, 696 NE2d 1175 (1998), §11:110 People v. Thomas , 137 Ill 2d 500, 561 NE2d 57 (1990), §18:10 People v. Thomas , 178 Ill 2d 215, 687 NE2d 892 (1997), §§6:130, 6:150 People v. Thomas , 198 Ill 2d 203, 759 NE2d 899 (2001), §1:270 People v. Thoma s, 222 Ill App 3d 1051,......
-
Hearsay
...statement in evaluating not only the credibility of the witness, but also the ultimate facts of the case. CASES People v. Thomas , 178 Ill 2d 215, 687 NE2d 892 (1997). When defense counsel failed to object to the admission of a witness’s prior statement as substantive evidence on the ground......
-
Rule 805 Hearsay Within Hearsay
...December 1, 2011. For a supreme court case that predates the codified rule but illustrates its application, see People v. Thomas, 178 Ill. 2d 215 (1997) (proper to admit at trial out-of-court statement of witness's fiancee to the defendant because the statement qualified as a statement by a......