Court Opinion

ID: 9714632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:41:51.279444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:27.304708
License: Public Domain

TRAPP, J., dissenting: The convictions should be affirmed. There is substantially no dispute as to the following facts most of which were noted in record comments of the trial judge. As they were driving toward the place of this crime there was conversation amongst the occupants of the car about getting another car. When the Pontiac was subsequently observed parked at the side of the highway, Allen suggested getting it and Tillman, the driver, stopped the car, turned it around and drove back to or passed the point where the Pontiac was parked. The record shows no objection or opposition as to any part of this return, and it shows no coercion or persuasion of these defendants was necessary. When Allen and Johnson alighted from the car, one took the rifle and the pistol was handed to the other by one of the defendants. Tillmans statement was that he knew Allen and Johnson were going back to get the car, while Mims said that they were going back to rob. Tillman and Mims remained in or with the car, and after they heard several shots fired they continued to wait. When the Pontiac was started up these defendants pursued it, flashing the lights and sounding the horn as a signal for the Pontiac to stop. Tillman got out, went to the Pontiac and got some money. His statement is that he then said to those in the Pontiac, “What are you going to do, just leave us out here?”. The record further shows that at this time Johnson said, “If each of us don’t get to Chicago in two hours or so, then the other one got caught. Do you understand what I mean?”. The defendants then drove on to Chicago, ultimately passing through the roadblock which had stopped Allen and Johnson. The defendants’ disclaimer of participation in the crime and that they did not want to be a part of it must be measured in the light of their acts, vis-a-vis the standards set forth in many opinions of our courts of review. The stated facts disclose conduct of affirmative quality as distinguished from the “mere presence” or “negative acquiescence”. The People v. Hobbs, 400 Ill. 143, 79 N.E.2d 202; The People v. Powers, 293 Ill. 600, 127 N.E. 681, and The People v. Wrenn, 29 Ill.2d 581, 195 N.E.2d 154. If one voluntarily attaches oneself to a venture with knowledge of proposed illegal acts, there is an inference that such one joins in a common purpose and such inference may we considered with the other evidence that one consents to the crime, thereby aiding and abetting the offense. The People v. Rybka, 16 Ill.2d 394, 158 N.E.2d 17. In Rybka, it was contended that the defendant’s conduct was “negative acquiescence”. Conviction was sustained as to Rybka who drove the car to the scene with knowledge of the purpose to “roll a man” or “get a negro”. In People v. Bracey, 110 Ill.App.2d 329, 249 N.E.2d 224, a conviction of murder was affirmed when defendant returned with others to an apartment with the purpose to prevent a beating administered by the victim of the subsequent shooting. In The People v. Richardson, 32 Ill.2d 472, 207 N.E.2d 478, defendant joined with others to cross the street while some of the latter attacked and robbed. Upon the contention that the evidence did not show common design or purpose the court held that there need not be words of agreement, but that the purpose can be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the acts. In The People v. Wrenn, 29 Ill.2d 581, 195 N.E.2d 154, conviction was affirmed where defendant went with a youth gang, one of whom had a rifle, to hunt for another gang. The court reached the conclusion that the defendant subscribed to the unlawful venture. See also The People v. Hill, 39 Ill.2d 125, 233 N.E.2d 367. When Tillman drove back to the place where the Pontiac was parked and Mims went along, neither protesting nor objecting and without evidence of coercion, they did affirmative acts of attaching themselves to the venture with knowledge of the proposed illegal acts. Again, if a person is present at the commission of a crime without disapproving or opposing it, such conduct may be considered with other circumstances to reach a conclusion that he assented to the criminal acts, lent approval and thereby aided and abetted the crime. People v. Watson, 110 Ill.App.2d 343, 249 N.E.2d 293; The People v. Nugara, 39 Ill.2d 482, 236 N.E.2d 693. In People v. Bracken, 68 Ill.App.2d 466, 216 N.E.2d 176, defendant remained in the car 300 feet from the scene of the assault and rape but made no protest or effort to protect the victim — did not leave the scene or call the pohce. The conviction was affirmed. In The People v. Powers, 293 Ill. 600, 127 N.E. 681, defendant joined others for a ride in a car. There was a revolver on the seat. Defendant remained Waiting in the car with the driver while three companions took the revolver and robbed a man at a place some 50 feet distant. The court found that there was a justifiable inference of a common understanding in stopping the car to commit the robbery. The evidence is clear that after AUen and Johnson left the car with the weapons to go to the Pontiac, the defendants waited. At this point no person had been seen at the Pontiac. If the Pontiac was disabled or could not be driven, Allen and Johnson would need transportation. Johnson testified that he had known Mims for 9 years and Tillman for 7 years, and that when he got out of the car he knew that they would wait for him. Such waiting belies the contention that Tillman and Mims were fearful of the others and were only seeking the earliest opportunity to escape. In The People v. Hobbs, 400 Ill. 143, 79 N.E.2d 202, the defendant drove two companions to the scene, drove around the block twice while waiting, and then picked them up foUowing the robbery. The conviction was affirmed. Subsequent acts are competent to prove participation in a crime. The People v. Kolep, 29 Ill.2d 116, 193 N.E.2d 753; People v. Bracken, 68 Ill.App.2d 466, 216 N.E.2d 176. After the defendants heard the several shots they continued to wait until the Pontiac was driven off. They did not disassociate themselves from AUen and Johnson, but rather pursued them and stopped them to get some money. That the first association continued is shown in Tillmans inquiry of Allen and Johnson whether they were going off and leave them. Such conduct supports a justifiable inference of common understanding. Again, an understanding of a subsequent meeting is reasonably inferred from Johnsons statement to Tillman that if each car did not get to Chicago in two hours, the other had been caught. The conclusion that the two dollars Tillman received from Johnson, was not part of the stolen money is not actuaUy supported in the record. Menard testified as to the denominations of the biHs he gave to the murder victim, but he also testified that the latter planned to go to the hairdresser and that he did not, in fact, know what change or small currency she possessed at the time of the shooting. Johnson testified that he had no money prior to the robbery. There is no doubt that Tillman asked Allen and Johnson for money. Whether the sum given him was from the victim or from Johnson is essentially fortuitous for Tillman did not specify whose money he wanted. No conduct shown in the record is consistent with the innocence of these defendants. They did not communicate their withdrawal from the venture to Allen and Johnson. The People v. Rybka, 16 Ill.2d 394, 158 N.E.2d 17. They did not undertake to escape from AUen and Johnson after the latter walked away to the Pontiac car, and they made no effort to escape after they heard the shots fired. They made no effort to caU the police and did nothing to aid the victim after they heard the shots fired. Such are proper factors to be considered upon the issue of common purpose or of innocence. The People v. Kolep, 29 Ill.2d 116, 193 N.E.2d 753; People v. Bracken, 68 Ill.App.2d 466, 216 N.E.2d 176, and People v. Johnson, 61 Ill.App.2d 319, 210 N.E.2d 344. In each of the cases we have cited it was contended that the defendant did not participate in the offense and that there was no proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In each the conviction was affirmed. The sum of the admitted conduct of the defendants is a more precise measure of their accountability than their respective statements of desire to avert criminal conduct and to escape from the misdeeds of AHen and Johnson. Under such circumstances determination of the credibility of the witnesses is not a genuine issue. The principal opinion concludes that the conduct of the defendants constituted “mere presence” or “negative acquiescence” as to the crimes of Alien and Johnson. In the authorities cited in the opinion the conduct was of much different quality than here. In The People v. Barnes, 311 Ill. 559, 143 N.E. 445, a woman was charged with theft of a car. The evidence is that she was riding as a guest when the car ceased to function. While she waited her companion went for aid and returned with a car which proved to be stolen. At the most, she suspected that it was stolen. There was, however, no evidence of an affirmative act prior to or at the time of the theft. In The People v. Dalton, 355 Ill. 312, 189 N.E. 265, defendant loaned a shotgun to others who committed murder at some later date. The other defendants denied that Dalton knew of a scheme to murder. In People v. Washington, 121 Ill.App.2d 174, 257 N.E.2d 190, defendant came upon a scene of a gang rape. He was not identified as a member of the gang. The only evidence was that he stayed to persuade his cousin to leave the scene, and fled when the police came. The court concluded that there was no evidence that defendant facilitated the rape, or any common scheme. In People v. Ramirez, 93 Ill.App.2d 404, 236 N.E.2d 284, defendant asked to stay in the apartment of another. There he observed a man tied, but there was no evidence to establish when the man died. The court determined that there was no evidence of affirmative acts by defendant prior to or during the commission of the murder.