People v. Turner

Decision Date05 January 1976
Docket NumberNo. 60235,60235
Citation342 N.E.2d 158,35 Ill.App.3d 550
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo TURNER, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Howard T. Savage, Chicago (Patricia Unsinn, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Bernard Carey, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago, (Laurence J. Bolon and Marcia B. Orr, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

GOLDBERG, Justice:

After a jury trial, Lorenzo Turner (defendant) was found guilty of aggravated kidnapping (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 10-2) and intimidation (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 12-6.) He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 75 to 225 years upon the first conviction and 3 to 10 years upon the second. He appeals.

In this court, defendant contends that the trial court improperly denied his motion to quash his arrest and to suppress his subsequent confession; a complaint for search warrant and the warrant were improperly received in evidence during a hearing on this motion; admission into evidence of the results of the tracing of a telephone call without court order violated federal law; the proof fails to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; it was error for the trial judge to refuse to allow counsel for defendant to participate directly in the voir dire examination of prospective jurors; the instructions were improper and conduct of the Assistant State's Attorney in cross-examination of the defendant and closing argument was improper and prejudicial.

The State contends that the trial court properly admitted defendant's oral and written confessions in evidence because the motion to quash the arrest was properly denied and the statements by defendant were free from any taint from that arrest; if admission of the confessions was error, it was harmless; evidence of the results of a telephone trace was properly received; the evidence proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; regarding selection of the jury, defendant failed to preserve the issue for review and failed to show prejudice resulting from the trial court's action; the jury was properly instructed and the prosecutor's questions on cross-examination and comments on closing argument did not deny defendant a fair trial.

The evidence received by the court on the hearing of defendant's motion to quash his arrest and suppress his confession will be subsequently stated when we consider these issues. This opinion will commence with a summary of the pertinent evidence during the case in chief.

Allen Bernstein was last seen by his wife when she left their home about 8:30 A.M. on Friday, April 21, 1972. Mrs. Bernstein testified that when she left her husband was home and his Chevrolet automobile was in their garage. She returned at about 3:00 P.M. and found a message to call her husband; he and his automobile were gone. Their daughter told her that Bernstein had called and requested that she call him. The telephone number was that of a cleaning plant on 63rd Street in Chicago, previously owned by Bernstein and sold to defendant. Mrs. Bernstein had never seen or spoken to defendant before that date but she recognized the telephone number.

She expected her husband to return at 6 o'clock that night. When he did not do so, at about 7:00 P.M., she called the defendant's wife. She made other calls but was unable to locate her husband. About 11:30 P.M. Mrs. Bernstein received a telephone call from an unidentified man who told her that he had her husband and wanted $100,000. She heard her husband's voice in the background stating instructions about raising the money. During this conversation, Mrs. Bernstein wrote a note to her daughter to call the police. The caller told her that he would call at 10:00 A.M. the next day and that she was not to call the police. When she objected regarding the amount of money, he told her to get what she could. Police officers arrived and Mrs. Bernstein told them that in her opinion she had spoken on the telephone to two black males. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was also alerted.

Next morning Mrs. Bernstein received another telephone call from a person she described as a 'black male' who inquired about the money. She told him that she had raised $33,000. Apparently he was satisfied and told her that she would get another call at 4:00 P.M. She asked if she could speak to her husband but was told this would be too difficult. At 4:15 P.M. she received another telephone call from a person with the same voice. He instructed her to go to the Clark gasoline station on 92nd Street and Stony Island Avenue, in Chicago, at 8:00 P.M. with the money. She was directed to make sure that no one followed her and she was to wait for a call in the telephone booth at the station.

Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had Mrs. Bernstein wear a device so that they could hear everything she said. She followed her telephone orders and, about 7:15 P.M. she drove from her home in Flossmoor to the designated telephone booth. There, she received a call at about 8:15 P.M. (April 22, 1972). The caller, with the same voice she had heard before, told her to leave the money by an incinerator and garbage can in the alley close to Harper Avenue and 88th Street and then to go home and await telephone instructions as to where to pick up her husband. She followed these orders. She had the money in $20 bills all dusted with fluorescent powder by federal agents. She left it in the alley and then drove home.

Shortly after 9:30 P.M. she received a telephone call from the man with the same voice. He told her that he could not pick up the money because the place was surrounded by police. He directed her to go back, take the money and return to the Clark gas station. She did this and about 10:45 P.M. she received a call from the man with the same voice. He ordered her to wait 5 minutes, then drive around for 20 minutes and then go back to the phone booth. She did so and returned to the booth about 11:20 P.M.

Here she received another call from this person with the same voice. He instructed her to call another number which she did. For a time the line was busy but then her call was answered by the same person. He said he did not know where she could put the money. After further conversation, he told her that he would call her at 9:00 the next morning. She drove home but received no further communication.

Lena Breeland testified that she was employed at the cleaning plant operated by defendant at 1339 West 63rd Street, in Chicago. She was at work on Friday, April 21, 1972, from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Defendant came to the plant at about 1:00 or 1:30 P.M. and went upstairs to his office. Allen Bernstein arrived there about 3:00 or 3:30 P.M. He spoke briefly with another employee and then went to the back of the store toward defendant's office. She did not see Bernstein leave the plant that day and has never seen him since. She did not recall having seen the defendant that day after Mr. Bernstein had arrived until about 6:15 P.M. before she left work.

Claude Fields, then employed by defendant, first saw defendant that day between 2:00 and 2:30 P.M. at the cleaning plant. He later saw Bernstein arrive in an orange and white Chevrolet automobile. Bernstein went upstairs to defendant's office. Fifteen minutes later, Fields received a telephone call for Bernstein from a male Caucasian. He went upstairs to the defendant's office and knocked on the door. Defendant stepped out and Fields looked into the office and saw Bernstein there seated on a chair. Defendant told him that Bernstein did not want anyone to know that he was there. Fields accordingly went downstairs and told the caller Bernstein was not at the plant. The witness saw defendant come downstairs and move Bernstein's car some 15 or 20 minutes before the plant closed. He did not see where defendant took the car and was not sure that he actually saw defendant enter the car or behind the wheel. He did not see Bernstein at any time thereafter. Some days later, when Fields learned about defendant's arrest, he spoke to his father and told him that he had seen Bernstein leave the plant. The witness also testified that defendant owned a German shepherd watchdog which stayed in the plant after closing time. Sometime before April 21 he had been introduced by defendant to an individual referred to as 'Big Man'.

The record shows participation in surveillance and investigation by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation working in cooperation with Chicago police officers. They had Mrs. Bernstein under audiovisual surveillance during the material times and at material places detailed in her testimony concerning her efforts to pay the ransom for return of her husband.

Eight federal agents testified during the State's case. A detailed statement of their surveillance of the activities of Mrs. Bernstein and of defendant during the night would add unnecessarily to the length of this opinion. It is sufficient to summarize their evidence by stating that the testimony of the agents constituted a complete corroboration of the testimony of Mrs. Bernstein regarding her activities on the night of April 22, 1972, including the telephone calls she placed and certain of the things that she said during these calls. In addition, the testimony of these agents shows that defendant was observed in the vicinity of 88th Street between Harper Avenue and Stony Island Avenue starting at about 8:00 P.M. He was driving a dark colored 1965 Ford automobile with Illinois license number VB--2393. One of the rear taillights of his car had been broken by the agents for greater certainty in identification. Their evidence also showed their observation of Mrs. Bernstein entering the alley in which the ransom money was left and verified the presence of a package at a point near the incinerator.

The agents also saw...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • People v. Lyles
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 19 Abril 1985
    ...544, 553-54, 288 N.E.2d 376; People v. Ross (1978), 60 Ill.App.3d 857, 861, 18 Ill.Dec. 77, 377 N.E.2d 230; People v. Turner (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 550, 567, 342 N.E.2d 158.) The defendant also has the primary obligation of calling up his motion for hearing and disposition. (People v. Jones ......
  • People v. Tyler
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 26 Noviembre 1984
    ...40 Ill.Dec. 1121, 405 N.E.2d 1121; People v. Conner (1979), 78 Ill.2d 525, 532, 36 Ill.Dec. 672, 401 N.E.2d 513; People v. Turner (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 550, 567, 342 N.E.2d 158; People v. Braden (1966), 34 Ill.2d 516, 520, 216 N.E.2d 808.) Probable cause for arrest is something less than ev......
  • People v. Billings
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 23 Agosto 1977
    ...and the search in this case, defendant cannot avail himself of any error on the motion to suppress. " See also People v. Turner (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 550, 567, 342 N.E.2d 158; People v. Glanton (1975), 33 Ill.App.3d 124, 138, 338 N.E.2d 30; People v. Smith, General No. 76-1239, filed July 1......
  • People v. Sakalas
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 Mayo 1980
    ...trial after the conclusion of the suppression hearing. (People v. Braden (1966), 34 Ill.2d 516, 216 N.E.2d 808; People v. Turner (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 550, 342 N.E.2d 158.) Here, the only testimony during trial as to entry came from Officer Botwinski, who stated that he and Antelek went to ......
  • 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