{ "id": 3478827, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LACEY CLANTON et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Clanton", "decision_date": "1988-08-02", "docket_number": "Nos. 86\u20141639, 86\u20141640 cons.", "first_page": "627", "last_page": "636", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "173 Ill. App. 3d 627" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "395 N.E.2d 563", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 Ill. 2d 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5489484 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/77/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "503 N.E.2d 384", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 Ill. App. 3d 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3540719 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/151/0644-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 879, "char_count": 21981, "ocr_confidence": 0.784, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.0970099028939525 }, "sha256": "dee13a975ed8a95b2b07dbbc9b4ca0095781ee9c51dbcb95eeb251fc512e87f8", "simhash": "1:223a02c84cef92f2", "word_count": 3805 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:33:51.483362+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. LACEY CLANTON et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE EGAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA jury convicted both defendants on five counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated battery. Each defendant was sentenced to five years\u2019 imprisonment on the aggravated battery count. Lacey Clan-ton was sentenced to 11 years\u2019 and Ernest Monroe to 16 years\u2019 imprisonment on each of the armed robbery counts. All sentences were to be served concurrently.\nOnly the defendant Clanton contends that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\nFloyd Richardson owned a building at 4109 West 5th Avenue in Chicago. He had made the basement into a neighborhood \u201crecreation center\u201d which was furnished with a bar, card table, pool table, stereo and a few chairs. Iron bars were located just outside the basement door. At approximately 11:50 p.m. on September 26, 1985, Yvette Davis went to the recreation center. Floyd Richardson and Dexter Woodard were already in the basement when she arrived. A few minutes later Claudette Banks and James Thomas came in. After midnight Betty Sloan and Penny McCline entered. Banks asked Sloan and Mc-Cline to wait a few more minutes while she went home to check her children. Thomas agreed to drive Banks home, and Davis left to go to her home as well. Davis returned about 10 minutes later. She knocked on the front door and Richardson went to admit her. In order to do so, he had to unlock the front door and pull it toward himself. He then had to open the burglar bars located beyond the door by sliding them sideways. After allowing Davis in, he was in the process of sliding the burglar bars shut when two masked men rushed in.\nRichardson tried to prevent the two men from entering and warned the others in the room to get down and protect themselves. Two or three shots were fired, one of which hit Penny McCline in the right ankle. The men yelled, \u201cThis is a stick-up\u201d and ordered everyone to lie on the floor. Dexter Woodard lay face down on the floor and heard two male voices throughout the occurrence. After being shot, Penny McCline ran to the bathroom and lay down on the floor with Betty Sloan. McCline could hear two male voices saying, \u201cGive me your jewelry, where\u2019s the drugs?\u201d One of the men, later identified as the defendant Monroe, entered the bathroom. He was wearing a stocking mask and carried a shotgun. He then ordered the two women out of the bathroom. Sloan lay down outside the bathroom doorway. Mc-Cline was pulled out by Monroe, and she lay down next to Sloan. He then searched both women and took Sloan\u2019s necklace, watch and purse. He was wearing plastic gloves. McCline told the man that she was in pain, but he told her to shut up. He pulled up her dress to search her and noticed that she had money in her stocking. He ripped the stocking to remove the money.\nDavis lay face down near the pool table. One of the men put a small silver-colored handgun against her head and told her he would blow her brains out if she did not give him all her money. She gave him all that she had, and the man placed the money in a white bag. She testified that she recognized his face because she had seen him \u201ca couple of times\u201d in the neighborhood. Although she did not know him personally, she knew his brother. She identified Monroe as that man. The other man yelled to Monroe that someone was coming and both men went to the door.\nAt that time, while James Thomas was locking his car, Claudette Banks went ahead of him to the recreation center. Thomas followed, and as he turned the corner to reach the doorway, he was met by a man with a shotgun. The man wore a stocking mask, grey pants, boots and a white hat. Thomas later identified that man as Monroe.\nMonroe pushed Thomas down into the recreation center. Thomas saw that everyone, including Claudette Banks, was lying on the floor. Another man with a pistol was searching Claudette Banks. That man took Banks\u2019 jewelry and purse. Thomas described the second man as wearing tan clothes and construction boots, although he admitted that he had told the police that the man wore white shoes. Thomas identified the second man as the defendant Clanton. While Thomas lay on the floor, Monroe searched him and took his watch, rings and $191. He heard Clanton walk toward the bathroom. He also heard Monroe ask Claudette Banks about \u201chappy stick water,\u201d apparently drugs, and her answer that she had none.\nAfter Monroe took Thomas\u2019 property, Thomas heard a voice say, \u201cEverybody freeze.\u201d He saw Monroe peek out the door and then put what Thomas thought was a gun down by the door. Monroe pulled off his mask and lay down between Thomas and Richardson. At that point the police entered.\nOfficers Patton, Nowlin, Kirchner and Finucane responded at 12:34 a.m. to a call that shots had been fired at 4109 West 5th Avenue. Patton walked down the building gangway toward the basement recreation center followed by the other officers. He observed a closed door with open burglar bars around it. As he approached, he heard a clicking sound that he recognized as the act of loading a round of ammunition into a shotgun. He called out to the other officers, \u201cThey\u2019ve got a shotgun.\u201d He found cover south of the door, and Nowlin found cover north of the door. Kirchner and Finucane ran around to the rear of the building. While at the rear, neither saw anyone leave.\nPatton hid behind the stairwell and called, \u201cPolice, come out with your hands up so I can see them.\u201d He could see the feet of two men in the doorway. One man went back inside while the other tried to hide under the stairs. Nowlin saw a shotgun fly out the door at that time. Patton told the man under the stairs to step out. The man stepped out with his hands raised. That man was the defendant Clanton. Nowlin picked up the shotgun outside the door. Kirchner and Finucane joined the other officers and they all entered the basement with guns drawn. Everyone in the basement was lying on the floor. The officers searched the recreation center to be certain that no one was hiding and placed handcuffs on everyone present. While he was being handcuffed, Thomas told Nowlin that the man lying next to him, the defendant Monroe, was one of the robbers. Clanton was returned to the recreation center and the victims then saw his face and clothing. Sloan and Davis identified him as one of the robbers.\nNowlin left the recreation room to search for more evidence. At the door\u2019s threshold he found a white knit hat. Just to the right of the outside doorway, about a foot from the stairwell, was a window covered by chicken wire. He found an unbroken necklace \u201cjust sitting up on the chicken wire.\u201d The necklace was identified by one of the victims, who was not named by Nowlin. Officer Finucane found a white canvas bag under a radiator near the door. The bag contained about $800, jewelry, a loaded automatic handgun, black gloves and two stocking masks. Lying near the bag were pairs of leather and rubber gloves.\nOfficer Henry Popek of the gang crimes unit went to the recreation room after the robbery. He recovered a cigar box containing 40 hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes and three white paper packets which contained cocaine. He also found, in the possession of Claudette Banks, a bag containing crushed green plant, later identified as marijuana.\nClanton testified that he went to the recreation center to buy cocaine. When he arrived at the recreation center he found the door ajar and pushed it open. A man wearing a mask and gloves and carrying a shotgun told him to come in and lie down. He saw only one person with a gun. While he lay on the floor he was searched and robbed of $35. After two or three minutes he was lifted up and thrown out the door, face down. He denied ever coming out from underneath the stairwell. He lived in Park Forest. He did not drive or walk to the recreation center but came from his aunt\u2019s home at 1010 West Arthington. He denied knowing Monroe or any of the other persons in the basement.\nClaudette Banks testified in rebuttal that no one entered the recreation center after her and James Thomas. Daniel Richardson testified in rebuttal that he had seen both defendants arrive at and leave the recreation center together about six or eight months before and that he saw them on a neighborhood comer at the same time on a number of occasions, the last time a week or two before the robbery.\nThe State first contends that the argument that the evidence does not establish Clanton\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was not raised in the post-trial motion and is therefore waived. We have examined the motion and conclude that the State is incorrect. Even if the point were not in the motion, we would consider it. People v. King (1987), 151 Ill. App. 3d 644, 503 N.E.2d 384.\nThe defendant Clanton points to the fact that only one witness, James Thomas, identified him as one of the robbers. He says that Thomas\u2019 identification was suspect because he could not tell the color of the man\u2019s clothing and he originally told the police the man wore white shoes and testified that the man wore tan boots. Moreover, at the time the man identified by Thomas as Clanton was in the basement, he had a stocking mask over his face.\nWe agree that Thomas\u2019 testimony, standing alone, might not be sufficient to convict nor would it be made so by the testimony of two other witnesses, Sloan and Davis, who identified Clanton after he was brought back into the basement by the police, because their testimony is subject to the same limitation as Thomas\u2019 testimony, the fact that the man was masked at the time of the occurrence. This is not to say that their testimony is entitled to no weight. All three viewed Clanton within minutes of the occurrence, and they obviously saw a man with the same build, of the same height, wearing the same clothing as the man that had just held them up. Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for them to assume that he was the same man who had participated in the robbery. Even without the identifications, however, the circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming that no reasonable person could have concluded other than as the jury did.\nTwo men entered the basement and committed the robbery. The only way out of the basement was the door; the police arrived in the course of the robbery; and no one got by them. The witnesses established that no one entered the basement after the two robbers. The defendant does not offer any explanation for the disappearance of the second robber.\nOfficer Patton saw two sets of feet come out the door; one went back inside and the other went under the stairs. Patton ordered the man under the stairs to come out, and Clanton came out with his hands up. A gold necklace was found about one foot from the stairwell where Clanton had been hiding. Officer Nowlin testified that one of the victims identified the necklace, without being able to identify which victim.\nThe defendant saw fit to testify, and he did so in such a way that the trial judge, with charitable understatement, correctly characterized his testimony as \u201cless than candid.\u201d Clanton testified that he went to the recreation center to buy cocaine. He did not know any of the persons who were there. When he walked in he was confronted by a masked man with a shotgun who ordered him to lie down and robbed him of $35. He was \u201csnatched up\u201d by some unknown person and \u201cpushed out\u201d the door, where he fell on his face. Contrary to Officer Patton, he testified that he was not under the stairwell and that no shotgun was thrown out the door. His testimony was at variance with that of Claudette Banks, who said that no one came into the basement after the robbers. The jury quite properly rejected his inherently incredible story, and the evidence against him was overwhelming.\nThe defendant Clanton next contends that the court improperly denied his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his previous conviction of intimidation and that the State improperly cross-examined him.\nThe State once again asserts that the defendant waived this argument for failure to include it in the post-trial motion. Again we have examined the post-trial motion and conclude that the State is incorrect.\nThe defendant\u2019s precise argument is not clear; but we have determined from his opening and reply briefs that he is contending that the trial court erroneously took the position that it had no discretion in determining what prior felony convictions were admissible and that error occurred when the assistant State\u2019s Attorney cross-examined him regarding his \u201csentence of probation and what actions on [his] part were considered a violation of that probation.\u201d The defendant does not argue that the trial court abused its discretion.\nAs to the first part of the argument, the defendant refers to the last three sentences uttered by the trial court in ruling on the motion in limine. The record contains a written motion in limine filed by the defendant, but it concerns medical testimony and not proof of convictions. We assume, therefore, that the defendant now refers to an oral motion in limine; we are restricted to the record before us. That shows the attorney for Monroe making an oral motion in limine to bar the State from going into his background if he took the stand. Colloquy ensued between the court, the assistant State\u2019s Attorney and Monroe\u2019s counsel. The court then invited counsel for Clanton to speak, who said this:\n\u201cJudge, as I am citing the same case that the State cites, People v. Montgomery, it was filled out and it was crimes they considered to be infamous crimes. Nowhere in there does it have the felony charges as to our defendants. We would join in the motion with counsel, ask as to our crimes it not be allowed to be used in that record, sir.\u201d\nThe court then read from Cleary on Evidence (E. Cleary & M. Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence, \u00a7609.4, at 378) and repeated the factors listed in that text that a court is to consider in passing on the admissibility of a conviction. Clanton\u2019s attorney then said that intimidation of a witness was not such a felony that could be used to affect credibility.\nA reading of the record, therefore, shows clearly that the court\u2019s statement, now seized upon by the defendant, was in response to the assertion by the defendant\u2019s attorney that intimidation of a witness under no circumstances could be used. The record also convinces us that the trial court, in its recitation of the factors to be considered before admitting such evidence, was aware that admission was within the court\u2019s discretion. See People v. Spates (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 193, 395 N.E.2d 563.\nThe second part of the defendant\u2019s argument, cross-examination of the defendant concerning his conviction, must also fall. On direct examination the defendant\u2019s attorney brought out that he had received \u201cone year supervision [s-ic] for a theft charge,\u201d that he had \u201creceived a pandering charge [sic],\u201d that they were both misdemeanors, that he pleaded guilty to a battery charge, a misdemeanor, and to an intimidation charge, a felony; and that he was on probation from the intimidation conviction at the time of the occurrence.\nOn cross-examination the assistant State\u2019s Attorney brought out that at the time he was on probation he knew that purchasing cocaine was a violation of the law and, perhaps, of his probation. The only objections made by the defendant\u2019s attorney were that the question called for the defendant to give a legal conclusion and that the question had been asked and answered.\nFirst, we are not convinced that the cross-examination was improper in view of the defendant\u2019s direct testimony. Second, the ground now advanced was. not made in the trial court. Third, if there was any error, it was harmless considering all the evidence against the defendant.\nThe last contention made by the defendant Clanton is the only assignment of error made by the defendant Monroe. They argue that reversible error occurred when the State failed to prove that Monroe and Clanton were cousins, as its cross-examination of Clanton suggested.\nThe assistant State\u2019s Attorney first asked the defendant if he had driven to the location with Monroe, and he answered that he had not. In response to another question, he said that he did not know Monroe. A sidebar took place in which Monroe\u2019s counsel directed his argument to the questions concerning whether or not Clanton had arrived with Monroe. He argued that the assistant State\u2019s Attorney should be prepared to prove that he had. No objection was made at that time by the attorney for Clanton. The defendant was asked whether he and Monroe were cousins and he said that they were not. He was asked whether he had known Monroe for many years and he said he had not. The judge then interrupted and conducted another sidebar in which he asked the assistant State\u2019s Attorney whether she was prepared to perfect the impeachment. She said that she was. She gave the name of someone named \u201cRichardson\u201d as the person who would perfect the impeachment. After some colloquy, Monroe\u2019s attorney asked if she had \u201cdocumentary evidence to show the familial tie\u201d or was she \u201cgoing on basically hearsay evidence.\u201d She answered that she did not have documentary evidence, she did not have any birth certificate nor did she need one. She said that the witness had spoken to Monroe and there was a possibility that that witness had had conversations with the defendants that they were related. The court asked how she was going to perfect the impeachment, and she said that she would do it with a witness that knew both defendants and knew that they were cousins and that they associate with one another. She was not prepared at that point to say what the witness was going to testify to. The attorney for Monroe asked if the testimony was going to be \u201ca man told me this is this man\u2019s cousin.\u201d The judge said that even if it were not proved up, if it was established that \u201cthey are friends or something like that\u201d it would change things. He told the assistant State\u2019s Attorney that she could ask if they were related, if they were friends, or if they knew each other. Contrary to the defendants\u2019 assertions here, the assistant State\u2019s Attorney never said she would prove they were friends.\nThe defendant then answered again that he was not related to Monroe and that he did not know him. He also said that the night of September 27 was the first time he saw Monroe.\nDaniel Richardson testified in rebuttal that he was present in the basement at 4109 West 5th Avenue approximately six to eight months before the occurrence and saw both defendants. They were together. He was introduced to Lacey Clanton by Monroe\u2019s brother. The judge sustained an objection to the testimony that the person was Monroe\u2019s brother. He was then introduced to Monroe by the same man. He said that Wendell Monroe introduced Clanton as his cousin. That was permitted to stand. Another sidebar occurred. The court then sustained an objection to the testimony that Wendell said, in the presence of Clan-ton, that Clanton was his cousin. Further colloquy ensued during which the court said that the evidence might show an admission by silence. After further argument by one of Monroe\u2019s attorneys, the court sustained the objection. He said that he would let stand the testimony that they came together.\nAfter the examination of Richardson resumed, he testified that the defendants came in the basement together and left together. He then said that he had seen the defendants at the 5th Avenue and Pulaski comer on a number of occasions. He saw them there about one or two weeks before. They were in the same area at the same time.\nOn cross-examination the attorney for Monroe brought out that the witness had played craps with Monroe at the recreation center that night. He also played craps with Clanton there. He again testified that he saw Monroe and Clanton on the street together.\nEven though the evidence created an inference that the parties did in fact know each other, the defendants still argue that they should be granted a new trial simply because the State failed to prove that they were cousins. Contrary to Clanton\u2019s suggestion here, the testimony that was admitted was probative to establish that the defendants knew each other, thus showing that Clanton testified falsely when he told the jury that he had never seen Monroe before.\nThe cases on this point that have been cited by the defendants have no application here. The record establishes that the assistant State\u2019s Attorney made good-f\u00e1ith representations before the witness testified and a good-faith attempt to establish a relationship between the defendants. Moreover, we are not convinced that she could not have properly shown the relationship. The record shows that she apparently was prepared to establish that Wendell Monroe told Richardson in the presence of both defendants that Ernest Monroe was his brother and Lacey Clanton was his cousin. But even if we were to conclude that she could not have shown the relationship and the evidence was properly stricken, in the light of all of Richardson\u2019s testimony, it is inconceivable that the absence of proof of such insignificance should be raised to the level of reversible error in any case, let alone a case with such overwhelming proof as there is in this case.\nFor all these reasons, the judgments of the circuit court of Cook County are affirmed.\nJudgments affirmed.\nHARTMAN, P.J., and BILANDIC, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE EGAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Paul P. Biebel, Jr., and Randolph N. Stone, Public Defenders, of Chicago (Deborah A. White and Ronald P. Alwin, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellants.", "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth T. McCurry, Kim Novi, and Marilyn F. Schlesinger, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LACEY CLANTON et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNos. 86\u20141639, 86\u20141640 cons.\nOpinion filed August 2, 1988.\nPaul P. Biebel, Jr., and Randolph N. Stone, Public Defenders, of Chicago (Deborah A. White and Ronald P. Alwin, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellants.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth T. McCurry, Kim Novi, and Marilyn F. Schlesinger, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0627-01", "first_page_order": 649, "last_page_order": 658 }