Court Opinion

ID: 9712557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:56:14.002024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:13.004396
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE PINGHAM, specially concurring: Count I of the indictment on which the defendant was tried alleged, “[0]n December 20, 1983 at and within Cook County Dale Wachal committed the offense of murder in that he, without lawful justification intentionally and knowingly beat and killed Shawn Walker with his hands, in violation of Chapter 38, Section 9 — 1(a)(1) of the Illinois Revised Statutes 1981 ***.” Count II alleged that Dale Wachal in Cook County on December 20, 1983, “committed the offense of murder in that he, without lawful justification intentionally and knowingly beat and killed Shawn Walker with his hands” in violation of the aforesaid statute. Murder is defined in section 9 — 1(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 9—1(a)(1)), as follows: “A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death: (1) He either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another ***.” At trial, the prosecutor presented to the jury defendant’s 24-min-ute tape-recorded confession in which the defendant stated that on December 20, 1983, “using the back part of my arm; right arm, the back part of my fist, I *** hit Shawn somewhere between the chest and stomach.” The defendant stated that the instant he hit Shawn he knew he had done wrong, that he knew he had hit him too hard and that he should not have hit him. The blow knocked Shawn about six feet away. The defendant believed that Shawn’s head hit the door. Shawn gasped for breath. The defendant thought that he had knocked the breath out of him. The defendant picked Shawn up and attempted to revive him. Unable to do so, the defendant drove Shawn and his mother to the clinic. The defendant further stated in his confession that he struck Shawn in anger and that he was “mad at him because he was trying to do something that I didn’t want him to do right then ***. I struck him in anger, I didn’t just push him away.” Describing the force of the blow, the defendant’s confession stated, “I wouldn’t say it would knock over a grown man, but he’d know I hit him if I — if I threw that backhand at a grown man, he would know I hit him ***.” The State’s evidence established that the blow inflicted upon Shawn by the defendant on December 20, 1983, was the cause of Shawn’s death on January 13, 1984. The State called 15 witnesses during the trial. The voluminous record on appeal constitutes four volumes, over 2,000 pages. The greater portion of the State’s evidence established Shawn’s pre-December 20, 1983, physical injuries, some of which, the evidence established, were committed by the defendant. The evidence failed to establish that Shawn’s other pre-December 20, 1983, physical injuries were committed by the defendant. Most of the questions asked of the defendant and his answers during his tape-recorded confession concerned and established the defendant’s pre-December 20, 1983, injuries to the minor child. The State presented pre-December 20, 1983, evidence of 27 bruises and 4 bite marks on Shawn. Over 47 color photographs and slides depicting pre-December 20, 1983, bite marks and color photographs of Shawn’s body were shown to the jury. Seven witnesses — doctors, dental experts and nurses — extensively testified to Shawn’s pre-December 20, 1983, physical injuries. As stated, the State was unable to and made no effort to establish that all of Shawn’s pre-December 20, 1983, injuries were inflicted by the defendant. The record reveals that Shawn’s mother was charged with abusing Shawn and that she relied on her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in refusing to testify as a defense witness. Because of the position I take regarding Shawn’s pre-December 20, 1983, physical injuries, it is unnecessary to set forth this evidence in more detail. Although grossly incomplete, it is adequately set forth in the majority opinion. The defendant did not testify. The jury found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. On this appeal the defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the pre-December 20, 1983, physical injuries to Shawn. The majority concludes, “Since defendant was charged with murder and the State had the burden of proving that he knew that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to Shawn *** there is no question that evidence of defendant’s commission of these acts [the pre-December 20, 1983, physical injuries] was relevant and admissible to support the State’s purpose to establish defendant’s intent or mental state at the time he struck Shawn the final time.” (156 Ill. App. 3d at 336.) I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion. The State’s evidence established that the blow the defendant struck on December 20, 1983, was the sole cause of Shawn’s death. The State has not contended otherwise. The State has not urged and did not present any evidence to establish that any of Shawn’s pre-December 20, 1983, physical injuries were potentially fatal or contributed to Shawn’s death. Rather, the State argues, and the majority concludes, erroneously I submit, Shawn’s pre-December 20, 1983, injury evidence “was properly admissible for the purpose of establishing defendant’s intent or mental state, at the time of the fatal blow to Shawn, based upon a pattern of abuse.” (156 Ill. App. 3d at 334.) Evidence of the defendant’s infliction of the pre-December 20, 1983, nonfatal injuries does not establish or create an inference that the defendant intended to fatally injure Shawn when he struck him on December 20, 1983. This pre-December 20, 1983, evidence did not establish the defendant’s December 20, 1983, mental state. The defendant’s December 20, 1983, mental state was established by his tape-recorded confession wherein he stated that on December 20, 1983, he struck Shawn in anger. The defendant’s pre-December 1983 physical injuries to Shawn did not establish and were not admissible to establish defendant’s motive or intent. The evidence of the commission of other crimes by the defendant upon Shawn was grotesque and it was not probative to any issue at trial. The trial court, in my judgment, erred in admitting it. See People v. Lindgren (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 129, 402 N.E.2d 238; People v. Grabbe (1986), 148 Ill. App. 3d 678, 499 N.E.2d 499; People v. Davis (1984), 130 Ill. App. 3d 41, 473 N.E.2d 387; People v. Barbour (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 993, 436 N.E.2d 667; People v. Miller (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 421, 370 N.E.2d 1155. The majority’s reliance on People v. Drumheller (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 418, 304 N.E.2d 455, is misplaced. Unlike the voluminous child abuse evidence over an extended period and the extensive pictures and documentary corroborative evidence in the case at bar, in Drumheller the evidence established that the defendant spanked the minor child on three occasions in September 1970. The defendant struck the fatal blow on September 25. The defendant testified that he only intended to discipline the youngster, not hurt him. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder. In affirming, the court stated, “There was sufficient evidence from the defendant’s own testimony to establish the murder conviction. *** [T]he fact that defendant, on three previous occasions, inflicted injuries upon the child, refutes the suggestion that his actions were accidental or reckless.” (15 Ill. App. 3d 418, 421, 304 N.E.2d 455.) In the case at bar, the defendant did not contend, as did Drumheller, that he was disciplining his child or that his actions were accidental or reckless. The defendant’s uncontradicted confession established that he was not disciplining Shawn, that he intended to strike Shawn, and that he struck him in anger. Thus, the defendant’s pre-December 20, 1983, physical injuries to Shawn were not admissible in the case at bar under Drumheller. The capacious pre-December 20, 1983, physical injury evidence, the teeth marks and dental charts, the numerous color pictures and slides of the bruises and injuries, and the multiple pictures of Shawn when he was dead were highly inflammatory and prejudicial. Apparently this evidence did not convince the jury that the defendant intended to murder Shawn. In spite of its goriness, the jury was not influenced or persuaded by this evidence. The jury did not find the defendant guilty of murder. Instead, the jury found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is defined in section 9 — 3(a) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 9—3(a)), as follows: “A person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly ***.” The jury believed the defendant’s confession that on December 20, 1983, he struck Shawn, that that blow was the cause of Shawn’s death, and that the evidence proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of involuntary manslaughter. This evidence supports their guilty verdict and should not be disturbed. Because the pre-December 20, 1983, evidence of injuries to Shawn did not establish that the defendant intended to kill Shawn and failed to influence the jury to return a verdict of guilty of murder, its admission was harmless error. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(a) (87 Ill. 2d R. 615(a)) provides: “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” The guilty verdict in this case must therefore stand. I agree that the five-year imprisonment sentence was not excessive. Arising out of his totally unjustified anger, the defendant struck and killed a 16-month-old defenseless child who was most deserving of society’s care and protection. The defendant urges that the trial court’s following remarks in imposing the five-year imprisonment sentence reveal inappropriate considerations: “But what rights were given Shawn Walker? When he was first slapped, did anyone tell him he had a right to counsel? When he was shoved, did anybody advise him of the rights to remain silent? When he was bitten, did anybody suggest to him that he had a right to confront the witnesses against him?” It does not follow from these remarks that the sentence of five years’ imprisonment was excessive. For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the affirmance of the defendant’s conviction.