Court Opinion

ID: 9734146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:26:24.81393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:45.951506
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE; dissenting: Despite the pretrial publicity surrounding this case, I believe that the defendant received a fair trial by an impartial jury and I would affirm the conviction. People v. Strange (1980), 81 Ill. App. 3d 81. I agree that the sheer quantity of media coverage generated by the grim circumstances of this case would have made a change of venué desirable in order to prevent venue from becoming an issue. But this does not automatically point to the conclusion that refusal to transfer venue was an abuse of discretion. The main consideration is not the correctness of the trial court’s ruling on the motion for change of venue or the quantity and quality of the publicity involved, but whether upon the record the defendant received a trial before a fair and impartial jury. That is to say, was the defendant prejudiced in any way by the court’s ruling? If the defendant was not prejudiced, then the error was harmless. (People v. Yonder (1969), 44 Ill. 2d 376, 388.) Considering the record as a whole, it is apparent that the trial court went to great lengths to select a fair jury and to insure that the trial proceeded free from media influence. As hereinbelow indicated, the record discloses that defendant received a fair trial. To grant him a new trial for what is at worst a harmless error is most probable a useless gesture and is most certainly an affront to the judicial process. The conclusion that defendant is entitled to a new trial can only be arrived at by means of speculation and conjecture as to the effect of pretrial publicity upon the minds of the prospective jurors. This is the flaw in the majority opinion. One need not guess as to whether media coverage prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial. The trial record clearly discloses that defendant received a fair trial before an impartial jury. Defendant argues that due to extensive media coverage, it was impossible for him to receive a fair trial. Yet the defendant’s own statistics refute his contention. Of the 382 registered voters surveyed, 98% had heard of the case and 89% had heard of it often. Fifty-three percent thought the defendant was guilty, but 43% had formed no opinion regarding defendant’s guilty or innocence. Although indicative of extensive media coverage, these statistics also show that a significant group of those surveyed was unbiased. It was certainly not impossible to select an impartial jury based on those figures, and the court’s detailed and extensive voir dire examination guarded against selection of prejudiced jurors. During voir dire examination, the court employed a more rigorous selection standard than required by excusing for cause any prospective jurors who had formed an opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant even when they stated that they could set aside their opinion and judge the defendant based solely on the evidence presented. In choosing the jury, 47 out of 71 prospective jurors were questioned over a three-day period. Three days is not an inordinate amount of time to devote to jury selection under the circumstances of this case and there was no indication of any unusual difficulty in obtaining an acceptable jury. Of the 12 jurors finally selected, only five were objected to for cause by the defendant and those objections were properly overruled by the court. The juror Lingenfelter, who was objected to for cause, knew that a young girl was found knifed to death in the Zip-Tone Cleaners; that defendant and Gaskins were arrested and that Gaskins was eventually released after he passed a lie detector test. Lingenfelter had not read anything about the court proceedings that occurred prior to the trial, however, and had in fact been away from the Peoria area for the entire month of January. Although Gaskins was released after passing the lie detector test, Lingenfelter did not make any assumptions with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant from the release of Gaskins. Neither did he question or relate the release of Gaskins to the defendant. He had not formed any opinion at all with respect to the defendant. He stated without hesitation or equivocation that he would put aside whatever knowledge he had of the case and decide defendant’s guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. Juror Thorpe, also objected to for cause, stated that he had read articles about the matter around the time of the occurrence but could not recall any specifics. Although he recalled the defendant’s name, he had not read anything about the defendant in the newspaper. Prior to being called as a juror, he had not read or heard anything about the court proceedings. He did remember that another youth had been accused who was later released after passing a lie detector test. Although this made him believe that the other youth was innocent, he did not draw any inferences with respect to the defendant nor did he form any opinion about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Since being called as a juror, he had avoided all newspaper and television accounts of the matter. He assured the court that he could set aside those things that he had already heard and decide the case based on the evidence presented at trial. Juror Jacobson, challenged for cause, was seated by the court. Although defendant had peremptory challenges remaining, he chose not to exercise a peremptory challenge on juror Jacobson. Jacobson had read some news accounts of the killing and investigation. He remembered the names Taylor and Gaskins and that charges were dropped against Gaskins. However, he had formed no opinion of the case nor any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In great detail, the court interrogated him about presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, burden of proof and the necessity that only evidence presented in the courtroom be considered. Jacobson indicated that he could and would follow the court’s instructions and that he knew of no reason why he could not be fair and impartial to both sides. Apart from the fact that juror Jacobson was established to be impartial, the defendant is in no position to claim prejudice where he declined to exercise an available peremptory challenge on this juror when his challenge for cause had been denied. His failure to utilize an available peremptory challenge amounts to a waiver of his challenge for cause. The same waiver may be said to apply to defendant’s challenge for cause to the juror, Betty Schlick. He failed to exercise an available peremptory challenge to juror Schlick when his challenge for cause was denied. In any event, juror Schlick was fully examined and correctly accepted by the trial curt. The typewritten transcript of juror Schlick’s voir dire examination consumes 15 pages. She knew of the case from newspaper and television accounts. She was familiar with the Zip-Tone Cleaners, having dones business there six or seven years previously. She stated she would have no difficulty setting aside anything she may have heard of the case. She would decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence presented in the courtroom. She had no opinion about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. She accepted the proposition that the defendant was presumed innocent and that the burden was on the State to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The same waiver may be said to apply to defendant’s challenge for cause to the juror, Betsy Janssen. He again failed to exercise an available peremptory challenge when his challenge for cause was denied. But once again, juror Janssen was fully examined and correctly accepted by the trial court. Although she had read and seen accounts of the killing in the paper and on television, and she remembered the names of Alan Taylor and John Gaskins, she had formed no opinions about the case. She had done business at the Zip-Tone Cleaners a couple of years previously. She indicated that she would be able to set aside anything that she had heard or read of the case and could decide it solely on the basis of the evidence presented in the court room. She further indicated that she would follow the law as to presumption of innocence and proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I certainly do not think that the statement by a prospective juror that he or she has no opinion about the case is some kind of magic talisman insuring impartiality. But when the record of a detailed and thorough voir dire examination supports a juror’s assertion that he or she has in fact formed no opinion, such statement should be given credence. Due process does not require that a jury be totally ignorant of the facts or issues of a particular case. (Irvin v. Dowd, (1961), 366 U.S. 17, 6 L. Ed. 2d 751, 81 S. Ct. 1639.) If a high degree of public awareness raises the possibility of local prejudice, the trial court should take steps to prevent such a result. Should the court, in its discretion decide that less extreme measures than a change of venue can be employed to avoid such prejudice, a reviewing court should carefully examine those measures to determine their effectiveness. In this case, I believe that the trial court successfully prevented any potential prejudice among the jurors. A new trial would change nothing. Defendant has raised a number of additional issues not discussed by the majority since they have reversed for other reasons. The defendant, having exhausted his peremptory challenges during voir dire, claims that it was error for the court to refuse to give him extra challenges. This argument is without merit. Although starting with 10 peremptory challenges, in six instances defendant used peremptory challenges without first challenging for cause. It is possible that the trial judge may have excused such jurors for cause if defendant had asked. The fact that defendant exercised peremptory challenges without first challenging for cause, and thus possibly wasting his peremptory challenges, does not require the trial judge to extend extra challenges as a matter of right. As for defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in refusing to sequester the jury, the defendant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the court’s ruling. If the jury is adequately admonished by the court and there is no showing that defendant was prejudiced, a refusal to sequester the jury is not reversible error. (People v. Yonder (1969), 44 Ill. 2d 376.) Defendant has simply alleged the possibility of prejudice and questioned whether the court’s repeated admonitions to the jury had any real effect. Thus, defendant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of the court’s discretion. Defendant next argues that his conviction and concurrent sentence for armed robbery must be vacated because it is an included offense of felony murder. Convictions and concurrent sentences may not be entered when more than one offense arises from the same physical act, or one of the offenses is, by statutory definition, an included offense of the other. (People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551.) Although the offenses in the present case arose from a series of separate and distinct physical acts, armed robbery is, by definition, included in the offense of felony murder. People v. Devine (1981), 98 Ill. App. 3d 914. In Devine, this court relied upon the definition of an included offense set out in section 2 — 9 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 2 — 9). An included offense is established by proof of the same or less than all of the facts required to establish the offense charged. Felony murder is defined as a killing which occurs during the commission of a forcible felony other than voluntary manslaughter. (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 9-l(a)(3).) When the forcible felony of armed robbery is the basis for felony murder, the same facts required to prove felony murder also establish the underlying offense. Proof of a forcible felony is an essential element included within the offense of felony murder. Therefore, I would vacate defendant’s armed robbery conviction. But, contrary to defendant’s argument, remandment for a new sentencing hearing is not required. Defendant relies on People v. Filker (1981), 101 Ill. App. 3d 228, in which this court held that a remand is necessary where the trial court could have improperly considered a second conviction based on the same act as supports the conviction for which the defendant was sentenced. The decision in Filker involved convictions for attempted murder and aggravated battery. Both offenses were established by the very same physical act. Filker is thus distinguishable since the present case involves offenses which are established by different physical acts. Next, the defendant argues that this case should be remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly considered as a statutory aggravating factor that defendant’s conduct caused death to another person. According to the defendant, the fact that his conduct caused death may not be considered as an aggravating factor since it is an implicit element of felony murder. (People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508.) Although I agree that death is implicit in the offense of murder, the record in this case reveals that the judge was considering not just the fact of death, but was actually concentrating on the brutal and heinous manner in which the defendant killed Lisa Conn. As a general proposition, in passing sentence, a judge may consider the circumstances under which the crime was committed. (People v. Heflin (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 525, 546.) While this is not per se a statutory factor in aggravation, the fact that the judge in the present case referred to it as such, is simply a misnomer and of no consequence. The court acted properly in considering the brutal and heinous nature of defendant’s conduct before imposing sentence. The defendant’s final argument is that the court abused its discretion in sentencing him to concurrent 30- and 35-year terms of imprisonment. Sentencing is the function of the trial court, and a reviewing court should not substitute its judgment absent an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. (People v. Lykins (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 35.) The record establishes that the trial judge reviewed all of the evidence received at trial, the presentence report and evidence and information offered in aggravation and mitigation. He likewise considered the arguments and sentencing alternatives as expressed by respective counsel. In so doing, the trial judge observed in mitigation that defendant had no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity In aggravation, the trial judge properly considered the fact that defendant’s conduct not only caused the death of another person, but was exceptionally brutal and heinous. Based upon the nature and circumstances of the offenses and the history and character of defendant, the trial judge determined that it was necessary for the protection of the public that defendant be incarcerated. He also found that a sentence other than incarceration would deprecate the seriousness of the instant offenses. In accordance with his findings, the trial judge determined that a higher than minimum term of imprisonment should be set. In light of these findings, the mere fact that defendant is only 14 years old, possesses rehabilitative potential, and has no prior criminal record does not militate in favor of a more lenient sentence. In view of the seriousness of the defendant’s acts, the court acted within its discretion in imposing a 35-year term of imprisonment. To summarize, the only relief that this defendant is entitled to is reversal of his armed robbery conviction. In all other respects, the record shows that defendant has received a fair trial free from prejudice! error. Justice would best be served by affirming the murder conviction and sentence. For these reasons, I cannot concur in the majority’s decision to give defendant a new trial. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.