People v. Thompkins

Decision Date25 January 1988
Docket NumberNo. 56977,56977
Parties, 117 Ill.Dec. 927 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Willie THOMPKINS, Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Page 38

521 N.E.2d 38
121 Ill.2d 401, 117 Ill.Dec. 927
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,
v.
Willie THOMPKINS, Appellant.
No. 56977.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Jan. 25, 1988.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1988.

Page 42

[117 Ill.Dec. 931] [121 Ill.2d 412] Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Mark L. Rotert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, for appellee; Richard M. Daley, State's Atty., Cook County, Chicago, Joan S. Cherry, Thomas V. Gainer, Jr., Donald P. Jonker, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender of Cook County, Chicago, for appellant; Karen A. Popek, Asst. Public Defender, of counsel.

Willie Thompkins, pro se.

Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the court:

In an indictment returned in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant Willie Thompkins, Ronnie Moore, and Pamela Thompkins were charged with six counts of murder and felony murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, pars. 9-1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)) in connection with the deaths of Gerald Holton and Arthur Sheppard, two counts of [121 Ill.2d 413] armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 18-2), two counts of concealment of homicidal death (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 9-3.1), four counts of aggravated kidnapping (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, pars. 10-2(a)(3), (a)(5)), six counts of armed violence (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, pars. 33A-2, 9-1(a)(2), 18-2, 10-2(a)(3)), six counts of obstructing justice (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 31-4(a)), two counts of solicitation to commit murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 8-1(a)), two counts of solicitation to commit armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 8-1(a)), two counts of conspiracy to commit murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 8-2(a)), and two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 8-2(a)), arising out of the shooting deaths of Holton and Sheppard. On defendant's motion, his case was severed from that of Pamela Thompkins. Prior to trial, all of the aggravated kidnapping and armed violence counts, four of the obstructing justice counts, and two of the conspiracy counts against defendant were nol-prossed. Following a jury trial, defendant was found not guilty on the two counts of solicitation to commit murder but was convicted on all counts of the charges remaining. Defendant waived a jury for sentencing, and in a death penalty hearing requested by the People, the court found that one or more of the factors set forth in section 9-1(b) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 9-1(b)) existed and found that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude a sentence of death. Defendant was sentenced to death, and the sentence was stayed (107 Ill.2d R. 609(a)) pending direct appeal to this court (Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, § 4(b); 107 Ill.2d R. 603). This appeal involves only the conviction and sentence of defendant, Willie Thompkins.

At trial, Keith Culbreath testified for the People in exchange for the State's dropping of delivery of cocaine [121 Ill.2d 414] charges against him. Culbreath stated that around noon on December 22, 1980, he went to Sandra Douglas' home in Harvey. Sandra was the sister of Culbreath's girlfriend, Sherry Dunigan. Sandra and defendant were present. Shortly after Culbreath's arrival, he went with defendant into the bedroom at defendant's request in order to speak privately. Defendant asked Culbreath if he wanted to make some money by committing an armed robbery, to which Culbreath responded in the affirmative. During this conversation, Culbreath saw two guns in the bedroom, a rifle and a silver .38 with a pearl handle. The two men then left the bedroom, and while doing so, Culbreath told defendant he wanted to go home and get his ski mask to use as a disguise during the armed robbery. Defendant responded, "Don't worry about it, [I'll] take care of that." Culbreath then told defendant he wanted no part of the robbery. Approximately 15 minutes later, Sandra and defendant left. Culbreath further stated that for one month prior to the above meeting, he had seen defendant at Sandra's home almost every day, but he did not see defendant for approximately three to four months thereafter.

Sandra was the People's principal witness at trial and the only occurrence witness to the crimes. Due to the crucial

Page 43

[117 Ill.Dec. 932] nature of her testimony, it will be necessary to recount Sandra's remarks in some detail.

Sandra testified that she and defendant had been dating for approximately three weeks prior to the murders, and had known each other for three months prior to that. On December 22, 1980, Sandra, Ronnie Moore, and defendant were at Sandra's home in Harvey. Around noon of that day, Keith Culbreath stopped by. Culbreath and defendant went into the washroom together and had a conversation. Sometime after that, Sandra, Moore, and defendant left the house in Sherry Dunigan's automobile [121 Ill.2d 415] and drove to the home of defendant's sister-in-law, Pamela Thompkins.

Sandra testified that she, together with Moore, Pamela and defendant, went down into the basement of Pamela's home. Located there was a small kitchen, bedroom, and recreation room. The group sat around the kitchen table for a short while talking. Pamela then made a telephone call, during which, Sandra testified over objection, Pamela said "They're here and they have what I told you they would." Approximately 20 minutes after Pamela made the telephone call, two men, whom Sandra had never seen before, arrived. These men were Gerald Holton and Arthur Sheppard. Pamela escorted the two down to the basement kitchen, where Moore and Sandra were seated. Defendant was not present.

Sandra further testified that Holton placed a small, clear plastic bag of cocaine on the table, while he and Moore discussed the cocaine and tasted it. Moore put a small amount of the cocaine into a test tube and instructed Sandra to cook the cocaine on the stove in order to purify it, which she did. When Sandra turned to show the finished product to Moore, she saw defendant standing in the doorway of the kitchen. He pointed a gun with a pearl white handle at the two men and said, "Put--all right put your hands on the table. This is the police." Holton, who was sitting at the table, put his hands on the table, while Sheppard, who had been standing, put his hands up in the air. Moore and defendant tied the two victims up with telephone cords, then dragged them into the recreation room. Afterwards, Sandra saw defendant drag Sheppard into the adjoining bedroom. Sandra and Pamela then went upstairs to Pamela's bedroom. Approximately 15 minutes later, at defendant's request, Sandra drove Moore to a nearby drugstore to buy grain alcohol to be used for free basing cocaine.

[121 Ill.2d 416] Upon their return, Sandra went back into Pamela's bedroom and the two talked for a few hours. At approximately 8 or 9 p.m., Sandra heard a banging sound, "like a small garbage can or something hitting up against something" emanating from the basement. And, after the banging sound stopped, she heard two gunshots come from the basement. At that point, according to Sandra, Pamela grabbed her face with her hands and said, "No, I told them not to do it here. I knew it wouldn't go according to plans."

Sandra then testified that she descended the steps leading to the basement and saw the feet of a body being dragged towards the garage. On the feet were construction boots similar to those worn by Holton earlier. Then Sheppard walked past with his hands tied behind his back and Moore walked behind him with one hand on Sheppard's shoulder, helping him along, and a knife in his other hand. Sandra did not see defendant at this time. She then observed Sherry Dunigan's red Torino pull out of the garage, followed by Pamela's white car. After their departure, Sandra was the only adult left at Pamela's house.

Approximately 35 minutes after the group departed, Sandra received a phone call from defendant. He told her to "go downstairs and clean up a little bit for him." In the basement Sandra saw blood smeared in the recreation room, the bedroom, and in the hallway leading to the garage. She also saw little white balls on the floor and a large pool of blood in the garage. However, because she became very nervous after viewing the scene, Sandra did not clean up the area as defendant instructed, but went back upstairs. Fifteen minutes later, Pamela arrived and

Page 44

[117 Ill.Dec. 933] paced around the house, "mumbling to herself." Twenty minutes later, defendant called. When Sandra expressed to him her anxiety, he told her to calm down and help Pamela. He instructed her to retrieve[121 Ill.2d 417] a gun he had left at Pamela's home and to walk down to the corner of Wood and 163rd Streets, where someone would pick her up.

After locating the gun under the living room couch, Sandra brought it to the designated location where her sister, Sherry Dunigan, picked her up and took her home. When they arrived, Moore and defendant were already there. Defendant then instructed Sandra and Pamela to meet him at the intersection of 147th Street and the expressway. After the two arrived a the location, they followed defendant to the home of defendant's friend, Delmar Watkins, where they spent the night.

The next morning Sandra was taken by Watkins to an apartment on 87th Street, where she was met by defendant. She did not know to whom the apartment belonged. When Sandra questioned defendant as to what the banging noise was she had heard the previous evening at Pamela's home, defendant told her to "just forget about it, the less [she knew], the better off [she'd] be." Upon further questioning, defendant responded that the noise was his "hitting [Sheppard] in the head with a shovel because he [Sheppard] didn't want to get in the trunk." Defendant then told Sandra to go with Watkins in order to wash Sherry Dunigan's red Torino. When the two arrived at the car wash, Watkins opened the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
172 cases
  • People v. Coleman
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 22, 1991
    ... ... Carlson (1982), 92 Ill.2d 440, 66 Ill.Dec. 78, 442 N.E.2d 504.) Moreover, where the door to a subject is opened by the defense on cross-examination, the State may, on redirect, question the witness to explain or clarify matters brought out during cross-examination. (People v. Thompkins (1988), 121 Ill.2d 401, 444, 117 Ill.Dec. 927, 946, 521 N.E.2d 38, 57.) The State may question a witness on redirect in such a way as to remove unfavorable inferences or impressions raised during cross-examination. (Thompkins, 121 Ill.2d at 444, 117 Ill.Dec. at 946, 521 N.E.2d at 57; People v ... ...
  • People v. Green
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 16, 1991
    ... ...         The prosecution is permitted wide latitude in closing argument, and improper remarks will not merit reversal unless they result in substantial prejudice to the defendant. (People v. Thompkins (1988), 121 Ill.2d 401, 445, 117 Ill.Dec. 927, 521 N.E.2d 38, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 187, 102 L.Ed.2d 156; People v. Cisewski (1987), 118 Ill.2d 163, 113 Ill.Dec. 58, 514 N.E.2d 970.) However, it is critical, during rebuttal argument, that the prosecuting attorney not make ... ...
  • People v. Liner
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 10, 2005
    ... ... People v. Thompkins, 121 Ill.2d 401, 444, 117 Ill.Dec. 927, 521 N.E.2d 38 (1988) ; People v. Sanchez, 73 Ill.App.3d 607, 610, 29 Ill.Dec. 821, 392 N.E.2d 378 (1979) ... The doctrine is limited in scope, is merely protective, and goes only as far as is necessary to shield a party from unduly prejudicial inferences ... ...
  • People v. Peeples
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 18, 1993
    ... ... In determining [155 Ill.2d 483] whether the remarks are clearly prejudicial, a court must refer to the content of the language used, its relation to the evidence, and its effect on the rights of the accused to a fair and impartial trial. (People v. Thompkins (1988), 121 Ill.2d 401, 445, 117 Ill.Dec. 927, 521 N.E.2d 38; People v. Franklin (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 408, 421, 355 N.E.2d 634.) Also, the trial court is in a better position than a reviewing court to determine the prejudicial effect of a remark made during closing argument. Absent a clear ... ...
  • 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