Court Opinion

ID: 9712673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:58:17.254833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:13.676109
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE JONES, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. While I must agree with the majority that there was a violation of the Bruton rule (Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476, 88 S. Ct. 1620) in this case as to defendant Healy, I do not agree that it contributed substantially to his conviction. Without consideration of the inculpatory statement of co-defendant Marine there was an abundance of evidence that the jury could, and in my judgment probably did, consider in determining defendant Healy to be guilty. The error in admitting the inculpatory statement I would therefore consider to bé harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 23 L. Ed. 2d 284, 89 S. Ct. 1726; People v. Smith, 38 Ill. 2d 13, 230 N.E.2d 188. After the police radio broadcast the information that the burglary had occurred at the S & S Corporation a pickup truck was encountered and pursued. The pursuing officer was hampered by dust thrown up by the pickup truck and he lost sight of the truck during the chase. Later the truck was located beside the road in a ditch, abandoned. Footprints leading from the pickup truck indicated that its two occupants slid down an embankment and walked through a woods. The footprints led to a railroad track which runs in a north-south direction and crosses the Johnson City-Herrin blacktop upon which defendants were arrested at a point approximately one-half mile east of the railroad tracks. At the time of their arrest, which was at 9:30 the next morning, their clothes were muddy and contained weeds and cockleburs and defendant Healy had some vegetation in his hair. The muddy, wet, cocklebur-infested condition of Healy’s clothes was consistent with flight through the woods from the abandoned truck. Defendant Healy’s clothes were also found to contain gypsum, a substance encountered by the burglars as they forced an entrance into the S & S Corporation. Plaster casts of footprints taken near the truck had similar characteristics to the soles of defendant Healy’s shoes. Hair found in the abandoned truck was similar in color and characteristics to defendant Healy’s. At the time of his arrest defendant Healy produced a California drivers license which identified him as Raymond Healy. He told the trooper he had been hitchhiking. After his arrest defendant Healy told Officer Wiseman that he was on his way to Enfield, Illinois, from California, that he had spent the previous night in Cairo, Illinois. He also stated that his gear had been “ripped off’ in Arizona. Neither of the defendants testified at the trial but defendant Healy’s story to the officers was contradicted by his own witnesses. His brother and sister-in-law testified that on the day of the burglary he had been removing sheet rock which contained gypsum from the roof of their father’s house. Defendant Healy’s brother testified that defendant Healy had left his duffle bag at his father’s house. Accordingly, he could not have been hitchhiking from California on the day of the burglary and his gear had not been “ripped off” in Arizona and he could not have spent the previous night in Cairo. Defendant Healy’s sister-in-law positively identified the toboggan cap found near the abandoned truck as belonging to defendant Healy. I think the accumulated circumstantial evidence against defendant Healy is overwhelming and that the jury was correct in finding him guilty of the crime based upon that evidence. The jury was given the following instruction with regard to the inculpating statement made by co-defendant Marine to Bauer: “Evidence has been received that the defendants have been involved in a crime other than that charged in the indictment. This evidence has been received solely on the issue of defendants’ identification, presence, design, and knowledge. This evidence is to be considered by you only for the limited purpose for which it was received.” The jury was thus instructed to consider the statement only for the limited purpose described. As the majority note in its opinion with regard to defendant Marine, the evidence of the burglary at Muddy, Illinois, was proper for showing a modus operandi. The prosecution did not dwell upon the inculpating statement nor did they unduly emphasize its importance to the jury. In fact, the prosecution did not mention the burglary at Muddy in its closing argument. I would affirm the trial court’s conviction of defendant Healy.