{ "id": 3083172, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE CROSS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Cross", "decision_date": "1981-10-27", "docket_number": "No. 80-2272", "first_page": "435", "last_page": "438", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "101 Ill. App. 3d 435" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "392 N.E.2d 106", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 Ill. App. 3d 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3267008 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "154" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/74/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S. Ct. 1513", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 L. Ed. 2d 533", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "435 U.S. 937", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3106, 3091, 2397 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/435/0937-02", "/us/435/0937-01", "/us/435/0937-03" ] }, { "cite": "367 N.E.2d 1313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5811071 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "578" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "625 F.2d 693", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1283149 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "700" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/625/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Wis. 2d 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8673052 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis-2d/87/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 F.2d 334", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 213578 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/488/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "535 F.2d 223", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1062313 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "228" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/535/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "598 F.2d 1008", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 493757 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1013" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/598/1008-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 U.S. 14", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167274 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23" }, { "page": "1025" }, { "page": "1925" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/388/0014-01" ] }, { "cite": "409 U.S. 95", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6171852 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" }, { "page": "333" }, { "page": "353" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/409/0095-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 449, "char_count": 6786, "ocr_confidence": 0.91, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08, "percentile": 0.3466319851080121 }, "sha256": "f64a6cda3ce142d855e40b7c872329a952f920762930852f86260185c3de808f", "simhash": "1:8650b1465b012291", "word_count": 1088 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:21:39.102418+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. GEORGE CROSS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DOWNING\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nGeorge Cross, defendant, appeals his conviction for attempted murder. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 8 \u2014 4.) He was found guilty in a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Defendant claims that he was denied his due process right to call witnesses on his behalf, and that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\nDefendant was charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery in throwing Marla Nelson, the victim, from a third-story window. The victim claimed that defendant and several other men threw her from a hotel window. At defendant\u2019s preliminary hearing, the victim saw Gerald Washington, whom she believed to be one of defendant\u2019s accomplices. He had not been previously identified by name or apprehended. She notified a police officer, but Washington left the building before being apprehended. The day of defendant\u2019s trial, the victim saw Washington in the courtroom, as he was to be a witness for defendant. She identified him to an assistant State\u2019s Attorney, who secured a warrant for Washington\u2019s arrest. The warrant was issued by another judge after a hearing at which the victim testified.\nWhen defendant\u2019s case was called for trial, the State moved for a continuance based upon the pending arrest of Washington. Defense counsel objected. The motion was denied. The trial court then ordered police officers not to execute the arrest warrant until Washington\u2019s participation in the trial was complete. The court then gave Miranda warnings to Washington, and, consistent with Washington\u2019s wishes, appointed counsel to represent him. While the State presented its case in chief, which consisted solely of the testimony of the victim, Washington consulted with his counsel. The defense called Washington as its first witness. Although Washington came to court with the intention of testifying, after consultation with counsel he asserted his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify.\nThe substance of the victim\u2019s testimony was that defendant lured her to his hotel room. Upon arrival he and several accomplices attacked her. The motivation she ascribed to defendant was animosity arising out of a drug transaction. The defendant\u2019s version of the occurrence was that the victim accompanied him to his room so that she could inject herself with a narcotic. She suffered a bad reaction, possibly an epileptic fit, and jumped from the window. In essence, the trial court was faced with a question of credibility. In finding defendant guilty, the court expressly found the victim credible and the defendant not credible.\nI\nDefendant claims he was denied due process in that he was deprived of his opportunity to call Gerald Washington as a witness because of the \u201cintimidation\u201d of Washington by the prosecution. The sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right \u201cto have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.\u201d (U.S. Const., amend. VI.) A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to offer the testimony of witnesses. This right is violated if either the prosecution or the trial court exerts improper influence on defense witnesses causing them not to testify. (Webb v. Texas (1972), 409 U.S. 95, 98, 34 L. Ed. 2d 330, 333, 93 S. Ct. 351, 353; Washington v. Texas (1967), 388 U.S. 14, 23, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019,1025, 87 S. Ct. 1920, 1925.) Once such a violation occurs, it is not necessary for the defendant to establish prejudice to his case. United States v. Hammond (5th Cir. 1979), 598 F.2d 1008, 1013; United States v. Morrison (3d Cir. 1976), 535 F.2d 223, 228; United States v. Thomas (6th Cir. 1973), 488 F.2d 334, 336.\nIn the instant case, neither the prosecution nor the trial court exerted any improper influence to prevent Washington from testifying. The prosecution simply took the first step in initiating criminal charges against Washingtpn, and informed the trial court of that fact. The court then advised Washington of his rights, and appointed counsel to protect those rights. (Compare State v. Roller (1979), 87 Wis. 2d 253, 274 N.W.2d 651.) Washington\u2019s counsel then advised the court the witness desired to remain mute and to rely on the fifth amendment. Had Washington been arrested and charged earlier, the same fifth amendment concerns could have caused him to decline to testify on defendant\u2019s behalf. The prosecution requested a continuance because of the circumstances. However, the defense objected and it was denied.\nDefendant\u2019s argument is, in essence, that he was deprived of Washington\u2019s testimony because Washington validly asserted his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. A criminal defendant cannot force a witness to testify over a valid fifth amendment claim. (United-States v. Goodwin (5th Cir. 1980), 625 F.2d 693, 700.) Here, the trial court upon learning of the arrest of Washington, correctly advised him of his rights and, at his request, appointed him an attorney. Washington thereupon consulted with his attorney while the trial proceeded. When the defense called Washington, he, along with his attorney, advised the court of exercising his fifth amendment right and declined to testify. We do not consider under these circumstances that the prosecution improperly caused Washington to refuse to testify. In our opinion, defendant was not denied due process.\nII\nDefendant\u2019s second claim is that the prosecution did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact regarding the credibility of witnesses. (People v. Manion (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 564, 578, 367 N.E.2d 1313, cert. denied (1978), 435 U.S. 937, 55 L. Ed. 2d 533, 98 S. Ct. 1513.) Further, a conviction may be based solely on the testimony of a single credible witness. (People v. Mays (1979), 74 Ill. App. 3d 145, 154, 392 N.E.2d 106.) The trial court found the prosecution witness credible, and the defense testimony not credible. We have reviewed the record and find there is adequate evidence in the record to support the finding of guilty. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHARTMAN, P. J., and PERLIN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DOWNING" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Robert D. Click and Suzanne M. Xinos, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.", "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago. (Michael E. Shabat, Dean C. Morask, and Thomas J. Murphy, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE CROSS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 80-2272\nOpinion filed October 27, 1981.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Robert D. Click and Suzanne M. Xinos, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago. (Michael E. Shabat, Dean C. Morask, and Thomas J. Murphy, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0435-01", "first_page_order": 457, "last_page_order": 460 }