People v. Washington

• Decision Date: 31 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 1-87-1311,1-87-1311
• Citation: 240 Ill.App.3d 688,608 N.E.2d 546
• Parties: , 181 Ill.Dec. 473 The PEOPLE of the state of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 546

608 N.E.2d 546

240 Ill.App.3d 688, 181 Ill.Dec. 473

The PEOPLE of the state of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-87-1311.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, First Division.

Dec. 31, 1992.

Office of Jack O'Malley, State's Atty. (Renee Goldfarb, Donald T. Lyman and Bennett E. Kaplan, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Office of Rita A. Fry, Public Defender of Cook County (Millicent Willis, Asst. Public Defender, of counsel), Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.

Justice MANNING delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, James Washington, was convicted in a bench trial of aggravated criminal sexual assault and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He appealed the conviction and this court, with one justice dissenting, reversed and remanded the case because it believed defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. The State filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal that was granted by the Illinois Supreme Court. Thus, this case comes before us on remand from the Illinois Supreme Court (see People v. Washington (1991), 142 Ill.2d 663, 163 Ill.Dec. 917, 582 N.E.2d 183), wherein a supervisory order was entered vacating the judgment of the appellate court with directions to reconsider our decision in light of the decision in People v. Szabo (1991), 144 Ill.2d 525, 163 Ill.Dec. 907, 582 N.E.2d 173.

Upon reconsideration and having read supplemental briefs of the parties and heard oral argument, we now affirm the conviction and sentence herein. Numerous arguments were raised in the original appeal. However, this court initially ruled on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, and hence, did not address any of the additional issues. We now must do so.

Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel where disciplinary proceedings were simultaneously pending against his defense counsel; (2) he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt where the victim's testimony was neither corroborated nor clear and convincing; and (3) the trial court considered improper factors in determining the defendant's guilt. We find that each of these contentions lack merit.

While the facts in great detail are set forth in the original appellate court opinion at 210 Ill.App.3d 147, 154 Ill.Dec. 830, 568 N.E.2d 1279, we shall here recount the details of the occurrence in sufficient detail to understand the additional issues raised and the law applicable thereto.

The following facts were presented at trial. The victim testified for the State that upon the recommendation of a person known as Cordell, she and her boy friend, on May 29, 1986, rented a room from the defendant for which they paid him $30.00 for 30 days. The room was located in the same apartment in which defendant resided. Prior to renting the apartment, the victim stated that she had never met defendant before, nor had she, nor her boy friend to her knowledge, ever seen the apartment prior to the rental. They were initially given one key to the apartment, but subsequently had two keys made. Their first night in the apartment, she and her boy friend slept on a queen size bed with only a box spring. The second day they shopped for food, took the groceries to the apartment and refrigerated them and then left the apartment. They went out drinking and consumed four bottles of wine. Upon returning to the apartment, they found the apartment locked behind burglar bars. While waiting to gain entrance, some of the defendant's friends arrived at the door, were let in and the victim and her boy friend entered also at that time. However, upon seeing the victim and her friend, the defendant requested that they leave the apartment. A fight ensued between defendant and the victim's boy friend at which time the defendant took the apartment key from him and then tore his pants with a knife trying to find money. The defendant searched the victim in the kitchen after which she went into the living room and sat on the couch next to her boy friend.

The victim testified that she went to the bathroom at which time the defendant followed her. Once in the bathroom the defendant directed her to take off her pants which she declined to do. He then struck her in the head with a wine bottle and then ordered her to take the pants off. Once more, she refused. Defendant then cut her on the side of her back with the broken wine bottle. She then removed her pants and lay on the floor as told. Defendant then removed his pants, proceeded to sexually assault her, both vaginally and orally, until he ejaculated. He then left the bathroom and she followed shortly thereafter. They both went to the living room where she saw her boy friend sitting on the floor surrounded by five people. Eventually these individuals began threatening the victim and her boy friend, and the defendant allowed them to leave the apartment. After leaving the apartment, the victim related to her boy friend what had transpired in the bathroom. They went to a public telephone booth and called the police. The police arrived and transported the victim to Michael Reese Hospital for treatment. The victim further testified that while at the hospital, she gave her boy friend the key to defendant's apartment in order for him to accompany the police back to defendant's apartment. She denied that she was having a menstrual period on the day of the incident.

Paul, the boy friend, testified to basically the same facts as the victim with a few differences. He recalled that upon being told about the apartment by Cordell, that he, the victim and Cordell went to look at the apartment. He also described the bed that they slept in the first night as being "a little less than full size." He remembered hearing "pounding and scuffling" noises on the door and walls of the bathroom while the victim and the defendant were in the bathroom. And he was kept in the living room by the defendant's friends upon defendant's instructions to them. He noticed that the victim's head and hands were bleeding when she came out of the bathroom and he also observed a large spot of blood on the back of her blouse. He and the victim called the police upon leaving the apartment and the police arrived and transported the victim to the hospital. He accompanied the police back to the defendant's apartment and gave them the key which the victim had given him at the hospital. The police opened the door of the apartment and arrested the defendant.

The parties stipulated that, if Dr. Gordon of Michael Reese Hospital were called to testify, he would state that when he examined the victim at the hospital, he noticed a .3-centimeter puncture wound on the left side of the back and a swollen laceration on her head. He would further testify that he took oral and vaginal smears from the victim which he gave to an evidence technician. It was also stipulated that Dr. Gordon would testify that when he examined the victim, she was found to be in the late stage of her menstrual cycle and upon the taking of a blood sample, her blood-alcohol level was 293 milligrams. It was further stipulated that if Mary Ann Caporusso, a microanalyst for the Chicago Police Department, were called to testify, she would state that upon performing a test on the oral and vaginal smears, the oral smear tested negative for spermatozoa and semen and the vaginal smear tested positive for spermatozoa.

Defendant's testimony revealed that he was a recovering alcoholic and he contended that he had never met the victim until May 30, 1986, when she approached him as he was leaving Alco drugstore and solicited him for a date. He stated that she was accompanied by Paul. He told her that he did not have enough money, but that there were others at his apartment who might be interested in putting together a "package deal." She accompanied him to his apartment, they began drinking and she began talking "in riddles." Thereafter, Paul arrived at the apartment and angrily took the victim to the bedroom where he and she fought. The defendant testified that he went into the bedroom, broke up the fight and noticed that her face appeared to be bleeding. After the victim and Paul left the apartment, the defendant noticed that his door key and wallet were missing. Defendant denied that he had rented a room to the victim and Paul and that they had spent the night in his apartment. Defendant further denied having sex with the victim because she was drunk and could not establish a price. Defendant testified that he receives disability insurance because his left hand has been paralyzed for three years and, as a result of the paralysis, he does not have any strength in the left hand. Defendant also testified that after he had gone to bed on the night in question, the police entered his apartment with a key and searched the apartment. The police did not recover any broken bottles and they did not discover any blood.

Detective Robert Utter testified that he was assigned to investigate the rape of the victim. He went to defendant's apartment accompanied by Paul to arrest defendant. He was unable to find any broken glass on the bathroom floor, and he observed the defendant take out his keys and wallet when he put on his trousers. Detective Utter further testified that defendant resisted the arrest and, because of defendant's strength, it took both him and another officer to handcuff defendant.

Before we individually review defendant's contentions raised on appeal, we note that much of our discussion and reasoning in this case is adequately set forth in the dissent in the original opinion. However, in light of our reconsideration of all issues involved and the review of this matter by the entire panel, the making of a repetition of the analysis contained therein is necessary here. Because our disposition has changed upon this reconsideration, it is necessary to address and...