Opinion ID: 3134269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: In June 1993 one man was murdered and another wounded following a party held in the victims' apartment in Davenport, Iowa. The deceased, Charles Kunkle, and his roommate, Earl Houck, had hosted a beer party in their apartment earlier in the evening of June 5, 1993. William Horton, Raymond Smith, and defendant, all of whom had attended the party, returned to the victims' apartment in the early morning hours of June 6 and told Kunkle they had found him a girlfriend and would take him to meet her. Kunkle and Houck accompanied defendant and Horton to Smith's car, and all five men then drove to the Big Island area of Rock Island County, near the Mississippi River. According to testimony of the survivor, Houck, defendant said the girls might be out fishing at this place. Smith stayed in the car. Horton and defendant walked toward the shoreline of the river with Houck and Kunkle. When the victims saw that there were no girls, Houck started back toward the car. He stopped when he saw defendant holding a gun. Defendant told Houck and Kunkle to get down on the ground. Defendant then fired a shot into the air, after which Houck and Kunkle lay down, about five feet apart. According to Houck's trial testimony, Horton held him down while defendant approached Kunkle and shot him in the back of the neck. Houck testified he saw defendant pulling his hand away from Kunkles' rear pants pocket. Next, Houck was shot in the back of the neck by someone who stood over him. Houck did not see who shot him, and agreed it could have been Horton, although Houck believed that it was defendant. Either Horton or defendant searched Houck's pockets but did not take his food stamps. Autopsy evidence revealed that Kunkle was killed by a contact wound to the neck, probably made by a .22-caliber handgun. Other medical evidence indicated that Houck had been shot in the back of the neck and slightly to one side of the midline. Neither of the two bullets fired into the victims were recovered. A gun that was recovered from codefendant Horton's car was a .22-caliber J.C. Higgins Ranger model. Police did not test fire the weapon. Defendant's former girlfriend, Michelle Markley, testified that when she and defendant arrived at the party, defendant was paged by Horton. She overheard defendant tell Horton over the telephone to bring the Ranger  in case there's trouble. Markley stated that defendant also told her he expected to receive approximately $1,500 to $2,000. After Horton and Smith arrived at the party, Markley testified, the three men stepped out to discuss business. According to Markley, she, defendant, Horton and Smith left the party in Smith's car at approximately 2:30 a.m. The three men left Markley at a parking lot where she was meeting a friend and defendant told her he would return soon. Two hours later, the codefendants returned in Smith's car. Horton was taken to his house and Markley saw him put a bag inside his parked car at his home. Smith drove Markley and defendant to Markley's house. Markley testified that defendant took something from the dashboard of the car, which she believed to be food stamps because she later found $100 worth of food stamps which were not hers. According to Markley, defendant told her he was going to jail now but denied shooting anyone. Markley said she never saw a gun during the evening. Codefendant Horton testified pursuant to a plea agreement under which he was to receive no more than 80 years in prison. He stated that defendant's reference to the Ranger in the telephone conversation was to indicate that Horton should bring his .22-caliber pistol with him to the party. According to Horton, defendant suggested that he, Horton and Smith rob Kunkle and Houck. Horton claimed that defendant made reference to cap[ping] the faggots, which Horton understood as a reference to shooting them. Horton admitted that he let defendant take Horton's gun from a green bag. He testified that after the three codefendants took Markley home they drove to a grocery store, where they discussed a plan to rob the victims. The men drove back to Houck and Kunkle's apartment and induced them to come with them in Smith's car by claiming that Markley and her girlfriend wanted to talk to Houck and Kunkle. Horton's description of the shootings was similar to that of Houck's. When the five men arrived at Big Island, all but Smith left the car. According to Horton, defendant displayed the gun and ordered everyone to the ground. Horton said that defendant shot both victims. However, he did not see defendant take any food stamps from Kunkle or go through Houck's pockets. Horton denied that he went through the pockets of either victim. On the way back to the car, defendant told Horton, I told you I could. Horton further testified that after the shootings Smith drove him home and Horton put his green bag into his own car. The bag contained the gun, shell casings, a rope, and a knife that Horton said he found in Smith's glove compartment. Horton claimed that defendant threatened him to keep quiet but also offered Horton food stamps and a wallet, which Horton said he did not accept. Raymond Smith testified pursuant to a plea agreement under which his prison sentence was not to exceed 30 years. He stated that he overheard the two other defendants speak of capping faggots, which Smith took to mean that they were considering shooting someone. Smith claimed that Horton and defendant planned the robbery and discussed beating the victims if necessary. Smith testified that he did not see what happened at Big Island, but heard three gunshots after the others left the car and walked toward the river. Smith did not see any gun, wallet, or food stamps. Although he assumed that Horton's bag contained a gun, Smith claimed he did not know there was going to be a shooting. Smith further stated that Horton and defendant discussed food stamps and defendant offered them to Smith, who declined the offer. After police spoke with Houck, defendant was arrested and given the Miranda warnings. He then gave a tape-recorded statement to the police in which he admitted accompanying the victims and the codefendants to Big Island but denied that he intended to either rob or shoot them. At trial, defendant was the sole witness to testify for the defense. He testified that Horton was the person who wanted to rob or shoot someone and had mentioned such an idea to defendant days before the incident. Defendant claimed he did not want to get involved. According to defendant, the plan of returning to the victims' apartment after the party was Horton's. Defendant said he stayed in the hallway while Horton asked the victims if they wanted to go out for coffee. Defendant became aware that they were not going to do so when the car passed a coffee shop and Horton directed Smith to Big Island. When they arrived, Horton asked the others to get out because he wanted to talk to them. Defendant testified that Horton pulled a gun out of his pants and announced that he was an undercover cop busting them for drugs. Defendant claimed he stood at least 120 feet away and did nothing as Horton pushed the victims to the ground and shot them before going through their pockets. As they returned to the car, Horton told Smith not to worry because dead men can't tell. Defendant denied offering Smith any food stamps and insisted that Horton was the one who said, I told you I could do it. According to defendant, he ended up with the stolen food stamps because Horton had been wearing defendant's jacket at the time of the shootings and had put the stamps in the pocket. At trial, defendant acknowledged that the statement he had given to police was substantially correct and reiterated that he was not the shooter. Under cross-examination, defendant denied having told Horton to bring the Ranger when he called Horton at the party. Instead, he claimed, the reference to Ranger was his request that Horton call the park ranger to find out about camping charges. He denied telling Markley that he was going to receive money that night and claimed that his comment to her about going to jail did not refer to anything that he had done, but rather concerned what Horton would claim. Although defendant continued to insist on cross- examination that he had no preestablished intention to rob the victims, he admitted that Horton had discussed beating them up and capping some faggots or hanging them. Defendant admitted that Horton handed him the green bag but denied seeing a gun in the bag. Defendant claimed he thought Horton was going to beat up the victims at Big Island but not shoot anyone. Defendant also acknowledged during cross-examination that he knew where the gun was when Horton retrieved it from Horton's house before the shootings. Upon further questioning by the court defendant claimed that on the way to the victims' apartment, We--it wasn't decided about robbing, but it was part of the discussion about beating people up--nothing about as a robbery at that time. During closing argument the prosecutor emphasized that defendant's testimony admitted guilt with respect to acts establishing his liability as an accomplice. The prosecutor concluded that [d]efendant had, basically, confessed on the stand to felony murder. In his brief closing argument, defense counsel remarked that the case was interesting and cited the absence of ballistics evidence. Counsel mentioned the varying testimonies of defendant, Horton, and Houck regarding which defendant had been the shooter and concluded, If you pull it altogether, I think they're all guilty of the same offense and should be treated the same. Defendant was found guilty of all charges. The court found defendant eligible for the death penalty based on the factors that the murder was committed in the course of armed robbery and the murder was committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner. See 720 ILCS 5/9--1(b)(6), (b)(11) (West 1992). The court ordered the preparation of the presentence report and allowed the defense motion for psychological examination in advance of the hearing in aggravation and mitigation. The presentence report revealed that defendant was under the care of Dr. Peterson while in jail and had been seen by several doctors concerning his mental health. He attempted suicide in 1988 and had one in-patient stay at a mental health center. At the time of the presentence report, defendant stated he was taking Thorazine for depression. The report indicated that since 1980 defendant had been treated by numerous doctors and had been prescribed various medications including Ritalin, Lithium, Vestaril, and others. In aggravation the State offered testimony of two witnesses who testified that defendant had been found guilty of battery in a 1983 juvenile adjudication. In mitigation, defendant offered seven witnesses, including various family members and friends, and Dr. Hauck, who examined defendant after the trial court granted the defense motion for psychological examination following trial. Defendant's mother and grandmother testified regarding his history of psychiatric care, which apparently began in kindergarten. His mother testified that defendant had been beaten by his father at a young age and that defendant had been prescribed Lithium and other drugs for many years. She found her son helpful and obedient around the house and said it was not in his nature to harm anyone. Defendant's grandmother, who had often cared for him as a child, corroborated the history of defendant's psychiatric care and periods of hospitalization since kindergarten. She had not experienced problems with defendant and believed his personality was that of a follower. She expressed shock at the charges. Defendant, who was 20 years old at the time of the crimes, told the court of his remorse. He denied that he needed money at the time of the attack on the victims, saying he went along with the other codefendants because he looked up to them. He insisted he did not know a murder would take place. Dr. Paul Hauck, a clinical psychologist, testified regarding his clinical interview and testing of defendant. Dr. Hauck found defendant to have an IQ of 76, in the bottom 6% of all people. This IQ placed defendant only slightly above mental retardation. Dr. Hauck also found that defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic who was delusional and who felt threatened without reason, who tended toward alcohol dependency, and who was unable to foresee the consequences of his actions. Dr. Hauck found defendant to be anxious, submissive, and easily influenced by others. Dr. Hauck believed that defendant's participation in the offenses was not rooted in hate or anger but instead was based on defendant's attempt to go along with the crowd or impress others. The doctor concluded that with maturity and time for reflection, defendant could, in future years, be a positive member of society. Dr. Hauck did not believe defendant was dangerous and expressed his opinion that there was no purpose to be served by executing defendant, even though Dr. Hauck asserted that he personally was in favor of the death penalty in some cases. Defendant's former girlfriend, Jeanette Stone, the mother of their two- year-old son, had lived with defendant for five years. She testified that he had always treated her and their child well and had shared household responsibilities and provided financial support. She testified that he feared guns and never had one around their house. Darlene Bennet, a friend of defendant who had known him well for about five years, testified that he was a trustworthy person around her grandson and personal possessions. Defendant's uncle had employed defendant in his siding business and described his successful job performance and attitude and his willingness to take directions. He believed that defendant was a follower but one who was a good kid who could be a decent member of society with the right leadership. The trial court imposed the death penalty for the first degree murder conviction and imposed prison terms for the other convictions.