{ "id": 1585469, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd Norris, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Norris", "decision_date": "1969-12-31", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 68-161", "first_page": "406", "last_page": "411", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "118 Ill. App. 2d 406" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "220 NE2d 432", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Ill2d 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5378433 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/35/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 NE2d 213", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 Ill App2d 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5243275 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "465" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/44/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 NE2d 3", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 Ill App2d 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5273408 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/49/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 NE2d 500", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 Ill2d 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5329364 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/18/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 NE2d 100", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 Ill2d 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2790325 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/22/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 NE2d 451", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ill2d 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2860162 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0331-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 469, "char_count": 7700, "ocr_confidence": 0.629, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.49124337434889e-07, "percentile": 0.663081129440365 }, "sha256": "45ee98a1a87954be0d08b4b197c33c12a7f1187500a416d903085a3f983c481c", "simhash": "1:7bfadcf8b1d8c732", "word_count": 1266 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:40:02.100969+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd Norris, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant Lloyd Norris appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Winnebago County sentencing him to a term of one to five years in the penitentiary after a jury found him guilty of aggravated battery and reckless conduct. Defendant contends that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; the court erred in making a certain witness the court\u2019s witness; the jury verdicts finding him guilty on both charges are inconsistent and, therefore, defective; and comments and inferences of the prosecuting attorney and witnesses were prejudicial.\nOn Saturday, January 28, 1967, in response to a call, the police removed Margaret Scott from defendant\u2019s apartment in Rockford to the hospital where she died that evening. They found her lying on the bed in messy clothing with a bruise on her forehead and blood clotted in her nose. An autopsy showed the cause of death to be aspiration pneumonia or the inhalation of stomach contents into the lungs; bruises and hemorrhaging under the scalp on the left side and under the brain covering on both the right and left sides. According to testimony, Margaret Scott came to defendant\u2019s apartment on Tuesday morning, where she spent most of the time in bed until Saturday morning when she was taken to the hospital by the police. Ressie Morrell was also in the apartment during that time, Arlie Kebler was there three days that week, Emery Fields was there on Friday, John Comer made a short visit on Friday evening, and defendant was present during the time involved herein. Statements made to the police and testimony at the trial by the above-named persons were inconsistent and varied as to detail, but generally indicated that considerable quantities of alcoholic beverages were consumed by the parties during those five days. Ressie Morrell stated that Margaret Scott messed and wet the bed several times and she and defendant cleaned up after her. She also testified that Scott fell out of bed more than once, and at one point defendant threw her out of bed; he slapped her repeatedly; he dragged Scott by the hair into the bathroom, put her in a tub of cold water, and dragged her back to the bed; he directed several threats at the deceased. The witnesses stated that there were no unusual marks or bruises upon the face or body of the deceased until Friday evening.\nA reviewing court will disturb the finding of guilty only where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt. People v. Crews, 38 Ill2d 331, 335, 231 NE2d 451. Although inconsistent statements were made by the State\u2019s occurrence witnesses, inconsistent statements were also made by the defendant. The question is one of credibility, which was properly submitted to the jury so that it could evaluate the conflicting evidence. The evidence here is not so unreasonable, improbable or unsatisfactory as to leave a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt, and we are not justified in interfering with the jury\u2019s findings.\nThe assistant State\u2019s Attorney called a Robert Ritter as a witness and, when he started to impeach Ritter, the defense attorney objected and the objection was sustained. Thereupon the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney moved the court to make Ritter a court\u2019s witness in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 238, Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 110A, \u00a7 238, and the motion was allowed. It is claimed by the defendant that this is error because Rule 238 makes it incumbent upon the requesting party to call the witness in \u201cgood faith\u201d and to be \u201csurprised\u201d by his testimony. The decision of the court upon such a motion is largely discretionary. People v. Williams, 22 Ill2d 498, 177 NE2d 100. Despite the claim that the assistant State\u2019s Attorney was not \u201csurprised\u201d and did not act in \u201cgood faith,\u201d the record reveals that there had been two prior and inconsistent statements made by Ritter, and the court was made aware of these statements. Under these circumstances the court could properly arrive at the conclusion that the assistant State\u2019s Attorney could not know what Ritter\u2019s testimony would be until he actually testified. There was sufficient basis for the trial judge in the exercise of his discretion to determine that the prosecutor was surprised and that he acted in good faith. People v. Wesley, 18 Ill2d 138, 163 NE2d 500.\nDefendant contends that the jury verdicts finding him guilty of aggravated battery and reckless conduct were fatally inconsistent in that the intent elements of each offense are mutually exclusive. The State agrees with the defendant\u2019s contention that the intent elements of the crimes of aggravated battery and reckless conduct are different, and that inconsistent verdicts cannot stand. The intent element to support a verdict of aggravated battery is that the act be done intentionally and knowingly; while the intent element to support a verdict of reckless conduct is that the act be done recklessly. The State points out, however, that the time period involved extends from Tuesday to Saturday and that the testimony shows four different acts of physical violence by the defendant upon the deceased. The jury could very well conclude that some of the defendant\u2019s acts, such as throwing her from the bed and striking her, were knowing and intentional; while other acts, such as dragging her around the apartment, were reckless and thus found that more than one act was involved so that the finding of guilty as to both aggravated battery and reckless conduct were the result of different acts and not the same act. In our opinion the verdicts were not inconsistent and are, therefore, sustained. It is noted that the defendant was only sentenced on the aggravated battery conviction.\nDefendant\u2019s last contention is that he was deprived of a fair trial by prejudicial comments of the assistant State\u2019s Attorney and prosecuting witnesses. Ressie Morrell testified that the defendant is \u201cabsolutely crazy when he gets a few drinks.\u201d This was an unresponsive answer to a question by the State and objection was made and sustained. She made a second comment that the defendant \u201cgoes insane\u201d and is \u201cdangerous\u201d when he drinks, but this was in response to a question by defense counsel on cross-examination and no objection was made. The State is not responsible for questions asked by the attorney for the accused under these circumstances. People v. Hester, 49 Ill App2d 308, 311, 200 NE2d 3. It is also stated that the assistant State\u2019s Attorney made comments regarding testimony before the grand jury without proving the statements and that this was an attempt to prejudice the jury. None of these alleged errors were raised in defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial and are, therefore, precluded from appellate review. People v. DeMarco, 44 Ill App2d 459, 465, 195 NE2d 213. Defendant cites People v. Weinstein, 35 Ill2d 467, 220 NE2d 432 for the proposition that even though defense counsel does not object to certain prejudicial statements, that does not waive defendant\u2019s right to raise the points on appeal. Here the circumstances are not analogous to those in Weinstein. We will not consider the alleged error since it was not properly preserved for review.\nFor the reasons stated above, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nDAVIS and SEIDENFELD, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Peter Alexander, of Rockford, for appellant.", "Philip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford, and William R. Beu, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd Norris, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 68-161.\nSecond District.\nDecember 31, 1969.\nPeter Alexander, of Rockford, for appellant.\nPhilip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford, and William R. Beu, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0406-01", "first_page_order": 412, "last_page_order": 417 }