People v. Walsh

Decision Date29 January 1980
Docket NumberNo. 78-1169,78-1169
CitationPeople v. Walsh, 400 N.E.2d 587, 80 Ill.App.3d 754, 36 Ill.Dec. 167 (Ill. App. 1980)
Parties, 36 Ill.Dec. 167 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas P. WALSH, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

Ralph Ruebner, DeputyState App. Defender, Steven L. Clark, Asst. State App. Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Cook County, Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Myra J. Brown and Bruce W. Lester, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

PERLIN, Presiding Justice:

Defendant, Thomas P. Walsh, was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated kidnapping and one count of deviate sexual assault.After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged.The court entered judgment on each verdict and sentenced defendant to two concurrent extended terms of 60 years on the aggravated kidnapping convictions but failed to sentence defendant on the deviate sexual assault conviction.Defendant appeals.

The following issues are presented for review: (1) whether defendant was proved guilty of aggravated kidnapping and deviate sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) whether the prosecutor's argument was improper and exceeded the bounds of fair comment on the evidence; (3) whether defendant was denied a fair trial because the jury may have seen him in handcuffs; and (4) whether the cause should be remanded to the trial court for sentencing on the deviate sexual assault conviction and for proper sentencing on the aggravated kidnapping convictions.

For reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm the convictions and remand in part for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The following testimony was adduced at trial:1

George Connors, father of the victim, Christine (Tina) Connors, testified that on the evening of September 28, 1977 at approximately 11:00 p. m. he received a telephone call from his former wife inquiring as to Tina's whereabouts.After speaking with Tina's mother, Mr. Connors searched for his daughter in a number of places, including her place of employment, but was unsuccessful in his attempts to find her.Mr. Connors notified the police of Tina's disappearance at approximately 10:00 a. m. on September 29, 1977.That evening he was informed by police that Tina's automobile had been discovered at a laundromat on 171st Street in Tinley Park.Later that same evening Mr. Connors received a telephone call from Tina's boss summoning him to the restaurant where Tina worked.When he arrived, Mr. Connors observed that his daughter was in a "very nervous state" with her hair in disarray and her clothes wrinkled.Tina ran to her father, threw her arms around him and cried, "Oh, Daddy, Daddy he hurt me so bad."Mr. Connors further testified that Tina "had never been missing" prior to this incident.

Christine Connors testified that she was 18 years of age and lived with her mother in Orland Park at both the time of trial and during September 1977.On September 28, 1977 at approximately 1:00 p. m.Ms. Connors drove to the Country Lane Laundromat on 171st Street in Tinley Park and parked her automobile in the parking lot near the entrance of the laundromat.No one else was present in the laundromat when she arrived.Approximately one-half hour later defendant entered the laundromat, without any laundry, looked around and then departed.As Ms. Connors took the first load of laundry out to her automobile, she noticed defendant sitting in an automobile in the parking lot.When she returned to the laundromat to finish her laundry, defendant again entered the laundromat and appeared to be looking at the bulletin board.Ms. Connors finished her wash, went outside to her automobile and placed a full laundry basket in the trunk of her automobile.As she walked to the door of her automobile, she noticed defendant leaving the laundromat.

Just as Ms. Connors was about to close her automobile door, defendant walked over to her automobile and, brandishing a gun, told her to "move over."Defendant cautioned her not to scream because he would "blow (her) head off."Defendant then started Ms. Connors' automobile and began to drive it out of the parking lot when it suddenly stalled.Defendant once again warned Ms. Connors not to scream because he had a gun.Defendant grabbed Ms. Connors by the arm, led her to a light aqua colored Chevrolet Belle Aire, opened the door, shoved her into the automobile and drove from the parking lot.As he was driving, defendant again advised Ms. Connors to remain quiet.Defendant informed her that he planned to steal her car because he needed money.Defendant further explained that he needed money because "they don't give ex-cons very good jobs."Defendant also informed Ms. Connors that "he(had been) in jail for ten years for killing two people."Defendant stopped his automobile near a farm field and tied Ms. Connors' hands behind her back with a white silk rope.Defendant pulled Ms. Connors from the car and locked her in the trunk.Defendant again cautioned her, "just keep quiet, remember I have a gun, don't make any noises while you are in there."While defendant was putting Ms. Connors in the trunk, she noticed an orange and yellow plastic toy truck, a small red wagon and some tools were inside the trunk.

Defendant drove for approximately two hours with Ms. Connors inside the trunk.He then stopped, opened the trunk and placed Ms. Connors' laundry basket full of clothes next to her in the trunk.He immediately locked the trunk and began driving.After driving for approximately another hour, defendant removed Ms. Connors from the trunk.It was dusk, but Ms. Connors observed that they were at a motel on 159th Street in Markham across the street from the Hub Restaurant.Defendant led Ms. Connors to either room number 20 or 21 in the motel and instructed her to lie on the bed.When Ms. Connors began to cry and shake, defendant placed his hand over her mouth and holding a knife to her, warned her "that if it was necessary he would use the knife because he had killed people before and he(knew) how to use a weapon."Defendant further cautioned "that if (she) started to scream he would shoot (her) with a gun because nobody would think it was anything, they would just think it was a truck backfiring, so he could shoot (her) easily and nobody would know."Defendant then pushed Ms. Connors on the bed and struck her when she began to cry again.While Ms. Connors hands were tied defendant attempted to insert his penis into Ms. Connors' anus but was unable to penetrate.

Defendant then showered.When he finished, he untied Ms. Connors' hands and ordered her to shower because "if he got caught it would be used as evidence against him."After showering, Ms. Connors dressed and was advised by defendant that they would stay in the room until dark.Approximately an hour and a half later, defendant once again tied Ms. Connors' hands behind her back, led her out of the motel room and again locked her in the trunk of his car.

Defendant then drove for approximately an hour.When the automobile stopped and defendant opened the trunk, Ms. Connors and defendant were alone inside a garage.Defendant removed Ms. Connors from the trunk and informed her that they were at the newspaper agency where he worked.A few minutes later defendant heard a noise outside the garage.Defendant cautioned Ms. Connors that if she"started screaming or if (she) didn't stay put that he would use the gun because he had done it before and he(knew) how."She was then ordered to hide behind a garbage bin a few feet away while defendant investigated the noise.

When the noise ceased, defendant instructed Ms. Connors to come out from behind the bin and stand next to him.Defendant then pulled her to him and began touching her "all over her body."When Ms. Connors began to cry and pull away, defendant struck Ms. Connors twice with his fist on her jaw.Defendant once again warned Ms. Connors not to make any noise.Defendant then advised Ms. Connors that he would do one of three things with her kill her, keep her or let her go.When defendant heard Ms. Connors praying, he began choking her, asking, "Do you still believe in God?"Ms. Connors replied, "yes" and defendant stopped choking her.

Defendant once again locked Ms. Connors in the trunk of his automobile and drove for "an hour or two."Ms. Connors heard defendant get out of the automobile and walk away.She"made noises" and attempted to kick open the trunk.However, a few minutes later defendant returned.

After approximately 45 minutes of driving, defendant removed Ms. Connors from the trunk and placed her inside a black van.Defendant instructed her to sit between the two seats in the van.Defendant again drove, eventually returning to the news agency.He then removed Ms. Connors from the van, placed her in the front seat of his car, locking the passenger door.

Defendant drove back to the Highway Motel, warning her not to make any noise.Defendant led Ms. Connors to the same room as before.He then tied her hands and legs to the bed and pulled her pants down.Defendant informed Ms. Connors that he was going next door and that he would hear her if she made any noise.

Defendant returned after a short while, untied Ms. Connors' hands and feet and ordered her to remove her clothes.Ms. Connors refused, and defendant hit her cautioning her that he would use the gun if she refused.Defendant removed all of Ms. Connors' clothes except her socks, completely undressed himself and pushed her face down on the bed.Defendant smeared VO-5 in Ms. Connors' anus and penetrated her anus with his penis.Ms. Connors told him to stop because she"had to go to the bathroom."Ms. Connors sat in the bathroom until defendant ordered her to shower and dress.Ms. Connors then asked defendant if he would release her.Defendant answered her that he would think about it overnight and...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
22 cases
  • People v. Lee
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 26, 2001
    ...trial, and (3) cases where a defendant's jury gets a glimpse of the defendant while in shackles. People v. Walsh, 80 Ill.App.3d 754, 768, 36 Ill.Dec. 167, 400 N.E.2d 587, 597-98 (1980). Where, as here, the exposure of a defendant's restraint to the eyes of a juror is brief, reversible error......
  • People v. Haywood
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • September 21, 1987
    ...at 177-78 (Smith-Hurd 1979); see also People v. Mueller (1973), 54 Ill.2d 189, 193, 295 N.E.2d 705; People v. Walsh (1980), 80 Ill.App.3d 754, 764, 36 Ill.Dec. 167, 400 N.E.2d 587; People v. O'Brien (1979), 74 Ill.App.3d 256, 258, 30 Ill.Dec. 202, 392 N.E.2d The Criminal Sexual Assault Act ......
  • People v. Nelson
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 29, 1986
    ...of force which must be proved in a prosecution for deviate sexual assault is the same as that for rape. (People v. Walsh (1980), 80 Ill.App.3d 754, 764, 36 Ill.Dec. 167, 400 N.E.2d 587; People v. O'Brien (1979), 74 Ill.App.3d 256, 258, 30 Ill.Dec. 202, 392 N.E.2d 967.) There is no absolute ......
  • People v. Cukojevic, 80-2258
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 29, 1981
    ...v. De Frates (1946), 395 Ill. 439, 70 N.E.2d 591, cert. den. 331 U.S. 811, 67 S.Ct. 1201, 91 L.Ed. 1831; People v. Walsh (1980), 80 Ill.App.3d 754, 765, 36 Ill.Dec. 167, 400 N.E.2d 587. From the clear testimony of the victim, coupled with defendant's admission to Assistant State's Attorney ......
  • Get Started for Free