{ "id": 2528598, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CURTIS CROFT et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Croft", "decision_date": "1991-03-15", "docket_number": "Nos. 1\u201487\u20142083, 1\u201487\u20142222, 1\u201487\u20142223 cons.", "first_page": "496", "last_page": "509", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "211 Ill. App. 3d 496" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "509 N.E.2d 618", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3504575 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/156/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "539 N.E.2d 1172", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 Ill. 2d 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3228316 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/128/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "528 N.E.2d 667", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Ill. 2d 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5551152 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/123/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "539 N.E.2d 1196", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 Ill. 2d 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3228677 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/128/0540-01" ] }, { "cite": "476 U.S. 530", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12807 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "545" }, { "page": "428-29" }, { "page": "2064" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/476/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "518 N.E.2d 82", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 2d 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3193089 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/119/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "538 N.E.2d 1118", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 Ill. 2d 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3228419 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/128/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 N.E.2d 541", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5476013 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/82/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 N.E.2d 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 Ill. 2d 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2762462 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/16/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "545 N.E.2d 665", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 Ill. 2d 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5569445 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/131/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 N.E.2d 573", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 917", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2499036 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/29/0917-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 N.E.2d 358", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 Ill. App. 3d 761", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3071717 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/102/0761-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1048, "char_count": 29578, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08, "percentile": 0.37763012438176896 }, "sha256": "74a6fb3abb1c24d79df26c2264963c494de53e941f6d0c2e94131e9ea61470b4", "simhash": "1:f0221c9cca39e9d2", "word_count": 5059 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:56:54.383547+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. CURTIS CROFT et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE EGAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendants, Curtis Croft, Kevin Campbell and Alonzo Woodard, were indicted with Demetrius Henderson for the aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and the murder of 16-year-old Kimberly Boyd. They were also indicted for armed violence based on the acts performed against Boyd. Croft, Woodard and Campbell waived a jury; Croft\u2019s bench trial was severed from the joint bench trial of Woodard and Campbell. Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the defendants\u2019 bench trials were tried together with Henderson\u2019s jury trial. It was expressly understood that evidence pertaining to one defendant would not be admissible against the codefendants.\nThe judge found Campbell and Woodard guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault and sentenced them to 28 years\u2019 imprisonment. Croft was found guilty of murder, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated criminal sexual assault and sentenced to imprisonment for natural life for murder, 45 years for aggravated criminal sexual assault and 10 years for aggravated kidnapping. Croft\u2019s sentences were to run concurrently.\nHenderson was found guilty of all offenses charged and was sentenced to death. His appeal is currently pending before the Illinois Supreme Court.\nWoodard filed appeal number 1 \u2014 87\u20142222; Campbell filed appeal number 1 \u2014 87\u20142223; and their appeals were consolidated upon their motion. Croft filed appeal number 1 \u2014 87\u20142083; and on the State\u2019s motion, Croft\u2019s appeal was consolidated with the appeals of Woodard and Campbell.\nWoodard and Campbell contend that the State failed to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; that the judge abused his discretion in hearing their bench trials simultaneously with the bench trial of Croft and the jury trial of Henderson; and that their sentences were excessive. Croft\u2019s sole contention is that the judge erred in considering the statements of Henderson, Woodard and Campbell at Croft\u2019s sentencing hearing.\nOn July 13, 1986, the body of 16-year-old Kim Boyd was discovered in the alley behind 6039 South Carpenter Street in Chicago. An autopsy performed by Dr. Mitre Kalekar revealed that Boyd had suffered over 40 stab wounds to the head, face, neck, hands, abdomen, back and buttocks. She also had bruises on her face, elbow and back, along with a broken right thigh bone and several fractured ribs. The skin on her face and right hip had experienced \u201cskin slippage,\u201d which could have been caused by coming into contact with the hot metal underside of a car. The cause of death was multiple stab wounds, which Dr. Kalekar described as defensive wounds.\nSeventeen-year-old Wendy Herron testified that at 8 p.m. on Saturday, July 12, 1986, she went to dinner with Croft and their infant child, Yolanda Harris and Demetrius Henderson, and their baby. After dinner, they drove to Croft\u2019s residence at 6736 South Bell. They talked and listened to music until 1 or 2 a.m. Henderson and Croft then dropped Harris and the two children off and returned to Croft\u2019s home. On the way back to Croft\u2019s home, they were joined by Alonzo and Anthony Woodard, Kevin Campbell, Kim Boyd and an unidentified woman. Later they were joined by Lester Snyder and a girl named Andrea, who was a friend of Wendy Herron\u2019s. After several hours of drinking in the basement of Croft\u2019s home, Croft and Henderson drove Snyder home. After returning, Henderson and Boyd were in a room located at the top of the basement stairs. Herron peered under the door to the room and saw the feet of Henderson and Boyd. Herron waited on the stairs until the door opened and Henderson and Boyd came out. Croft came down the stairs five minutes later. Herron and Andrea were then driven home by Henderson and Croft at about 3:45 a.m. Along the way, Croft and Henderson told her that they were returning to Croft\u2019s home.\nSixteen-year-old Anthony Woodard testified that he was at Croft\u2019s home on the evening of July 12. He, his brother Alonzo Woodard, his cousin Kevin Campbell, Kim Boyd and a girl named Angie got together with Croft, Henderson, Herron and a girl named Andrea, at Croft\u2019s home. After awhile the only people that were left were the Woodard brothers, Kevin Campbell, Croft, Henderson and Boyd. Henderson had led Boyd to a television room and later demanded that Woodard and Croft come into the room. There Henderson demanded that Boyd remove her pants. When she asked \u201cWhy?\u201d Henderson hit her in the jaw, knocking her to the floor. She tried to fight back, but Henderson hit her again in the jaw. Henderson had vaginal intercourse with Boyd on the floor for 5 to 10 minutes, and then Croft put his penis in Boyd\u2019s mouth. Woodard tried to stop Henderson and Croft but refrained from doing so after he saw Croft had a knife. Croft told Woodard to sit down, and Woodard did so. Croft then ordered Boyd to perform an act of oral copulation upon him, which she did. Alonzo Woodard and Campbell tried to enter the room but could not because a chair was blocking the door. After having intercourse with Boyd, Henderson opened the door and, with a knife, forced Alonzo and Campbell to enter the room. Henderson and Croft then forced Alonzo Woodard and Kevin Campbell to have sex with Boyd. Croft held a knife to Alonzo, pulled Alonzo\u2019s pants down and pushed him towards Boyd. Henderson had a knife in his back pocket.\nWoodard also testified that Campbell stood up and said, \u201cThis ain\u2019t right,\u201d and everybody got dressed. Henderson took Boyd to the bathroom and, when they emerged, Boyd had cleanser on her face. Henderson then told the others that they would have to kill Boyd. Croft blindfolded her and led her out the side door of the house. Henderson then drove his car to the front of the house, where Anthony and Alonzo Woodard and Campbell were waiting in a separate car. Henderson gave someone a \u201cjump start\u201d and then drove around to the back of the house, at Croft\u2019s request. When Henderson returned, Campbell asked him where Boyd was, and Croft responded by patting the trunk of the car, stating that he would take her home. Henderson drove to Boyd\u2019s home but continued past. Woodard followed them for several blocks but lost them in traffic. Woodard admitted that he did not tell the police that Croft had a knife. He also did not tell the grand jury about the knife threats made to his brother Alonzo and cousin Campbell. He said that both Alonzo Woodard and Kevin Campbell were bigger than Croft and Henderson.\nDetective Lawrence Tuider of the Chicago police department was assigned to investigate Boyd\u2019s death. He learned that other detectives had spoken with Alonzo Woodard and that the names of Croft and Henderson had come up. On July 17 Tuider and other detectives arrested Henderson at his apartment; Croft was arrested in the parking lot of the same apartment complex. After Croft was told why he was under arrest, he said that Henderson, not he, had killed Boyd.\nWken Tuider interviewed Croft later, Croft told him that Henderson became drunk and forced the other men, except Anthony Woodard, to have sex with Boyd. He himself did not have sex with her. It was Henderson\u2019s idea to kill Boyd. Henderson said Boyd should be killed because she would go to the police. She was then blindfolded with a brown rag that belonged to Croft. She was taken to the back of the house where she was placed in the trunk of the car by Henderson. (The car was owned by Henderson\u2019s mother.) Croft acted as a lookout when Boyd was taken to the car. Henderson and Croft drove off with Boyd in the trunk. Campbell and the Woodard brothers followed in a separate car, but eventually they lost Croft and Henderson in traffic. Croft told Henderson during the ride that they should feed Boyd, calm her down, and let her go home, but Henderson insisted that he had to kill her. At the alley on Carpenter Street they removed Boyd from the trunk, walked her 15 feet down the alley and laid her down. Croft was a passenger in the car, and Henderson drove over Boyd five times. Henderson got out of the car and stabbed Boyd repeatedly with a knife and then returned to the car. Croft and Henderson drove to Croft\u2019s house, where they washed up and went to bed.\nCroft was also interviewed by Assistant State\u2019s Attorney Murray and said essentially the same thing with a few more details. Croft told Murray that when he, Henderson and Boyd were initially in the T.V. room, Henderson asked Boyd to engage in sexual intercourse, and she refused. Henderson hit her with a rolled up piece of wallpaper in the head. At Henderson\u2019s orders, Boyd removed her pants, and Henderson had vaginal intercourse with her from a frontal and rear position. After Henderson was finished, Alonzo Woodard entered the room and also had vaginal sex with Boyd. Croft also said Boyd was crying and begging them to stop. They discussed what they were going to do with Boyd. Henderson said that after what they had done to her they would have to kill her or she would go to the police. Alonzo Woodard agreed, but Croft did not agree. Henderson blindfolded Boyd and put her in the trunk of the car. Croft told Henderson to let Boyd go or to give her some food. Henderson disagreed; he said, \u201cYou know, she has to die.\u201d They drove to an alley and, while Croft remained in the car, Henderson took Boyd from the trunk, and laid her on the ground. Henderson returned to the car and drove over Boyd four or five times. While Croft stayed in the car, Henderson got out and stabbed Boyd with a knife until she stopped moving. Henderson then wiped the blood off of his hands on a building, and they returned to Croft\u2019s house, where they washed up.\nAssistant State\u2019s Attorney - Murray testified that after his interview with Croft, Croft was taken in front of Henderson and he repeated the statement he had just given to Murray. Croft refused, however, to make either a written or court-reported statement.\nMurray spoke with Campbell and Alonzo Woodard at the Area 3 police station on July 18, 1986. They were both released. However, after Murray spoke with Croft and Henderson, the Chicago police were directed to bring Campbell and Alonzo Woodard back. Both Woodard and Campbell gave statements to Murray.\nCampbell told Murray that he was at Croft\u2019s house on the evening of July 12. Around midnight Croft and Henderson returned after dropping off their girlfriends. They then brought Boyd into the den and closed the door. There was a hole in the door, so he and Alonzo looked in. He saw Henderson hit the victim on the head with a roll of wallpaper and ordered her to \u201csuck his dick.\u201d While Boyd performed an act of oral copulation upon Croft, Henderson engaged in vaginal sex with Boyd from a rear position and frontal position. Campbell and Alonzo opened the door, but Croft said, \u201cBe cool.\u201d Croft closed the door while placing a pillow over the hole. Campbell heard Henderson tell Croft to go get some lotion so he could \u201cfuck this bitch,\u201d and Croft obeyed. Campbell and Alonzo made several more attempts to get inside. Finally, he and Alonzo pushed the door open and saw Boyd sitting on the floor wearing only her blouse. Boyd asked Campbell to help her, whereupon Henderson hit her on the head with a roll of wallpaper, and Croft kicked her in the head. Croft told Campbell and Anthony and Alonzo Woodard to \u201cdrop their pants\u201d because Boyd was going to \u201csuck everyone\u2019s dick.\u201d Boyd pulled down Campbell\u2019s zipper and began to perform oral copulation on him and then on Alonzo. Anthony Woodard stood in the doorway but did not sexually assault Boyd.\nEventually, Campbell and the Woodard brothers left the room, and Henderson, Croft and Boyd emerged five minutes later. There was Comet cleanser on Boyd\u2019s blouse. Croft told Henderson they had to kill Boyd, and Henderson agreed. Campbell disagreed and told Croft and Henderson that Boyd\u2019s brothers were mean. Croft entered the room and put a brown rag over Boyd\u2019s eyes. Croft informed Boyd that if she told anyone it would be all over for her. Croft led everyone to the rear room and picked up a knife from the kitchen on the way out.\nOnce outdoors, Croft refused to allow Alonzo to drive Boyd home. Croft, Henderson, Boyd and Campbell walked to the garage, and then Campbell joined Alonzo and Anthony Woodard in the front. Henderson and Croft drove to the front where they told Campbell that Boyd was in the trunk. Campbell attempted to follow Henderson and Croft, but he lost them in traffic.\nAlonzo Woodard gave Murray an account similar to that provided by Campbell. Woodard, however, said that when he and Campbell opened the door, Croft told the others, \u201cWhy don\u2019t you all get some[?]\u201d When Alonzo refused, Croft ordered Boyd to do something to Campbell. When Campbell refused, Croft said he \u201chad something on him.\u201d Campbell pulled his pants down and put his penis in Boyd\u2019s mouth. After that, Woodard sat on a pillow and pulled his pants down. Croft punched Boyd in the ribs, and then she performed oral copulation on Alonzo Woodard.\nCroft was the only defendant to testify. He testified that during the party at his house he did not engage in sexual intercourse with Boyd but was in the room at the time the others did. Later, he was driving with Henderson and Boyd in Henderson\u2019s car at about 4 a.m. They stopped at 60th and Aberdeen to visit Croft\u2019s girlfriend, Jackie. Croft knocked on her door but received no answer. When he returned, Henderson had driven off with Boyd. Croft then walked down the block and called Jackie from a pay phone. He eventually arrived at Jackie\u2019s house at about 5 a.m. He denied giving statements to the police or to Assistant State\u2019s Attorney Murray.\nJackie Rucker testified that she saw Croft on July 13, 1986, before noon. He was not covered with blood.\nThe first contention of Woodard and Campbell is that they were not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; they contend that they established, as a matter of law, that they were compelled to participate in the acts against Boyd. We disagree. It would serve no purpose to repeat the statements of Woodard and Campbell. Suffice it to say that their statements, which were corroborated in significant detail by the testimony of Anthony Woodard, established that they acted in concert with Croft and Henderson and had Boyd perform an act oral copulation on them.\nIn order to establish the affirmative defense of compulsion, it must be shown that the defendant\u2019s acts were performed \u201cunder the compulsion of threat or menace of the imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm\u201d and that the defendant reasonably believed that death or great bodily harm would be inflicted upon him if he did not perform the acts. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 7\u201411(a).) There is nothing in the statements of Woodard or Campbell that would justify a conclusion that they acted under a threat or menace of the imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm.\nThe defendant Woodard\u2019s brother, Anthony, testified that Henderson and Croft forced his brother and Campbell at knife point to have oral sex with Boyd. His testimony is at odds with the statements of his brother and Campbell. Moreover, he never told the police that Croft had a knife, and he never told the grand jury about any knife threats made by Croft or Henderson to his brother and Campbell. In any event, the credibility of Anthony Woodard was for the trial judge to determine. (People v. Lester (1981), 102 Ill. App. 3d 761, 430 N.E.2d 358.) Whether compulsion has been established is a question of fact. The trial judge concluded, in our judgment properly so, that the defense had not been established. The case cited by the defendants, People v. Adcock (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 917, 331 N.E.2d 573, is not in point. The issue in Adcock was whether a jury instruction concerning compulsion should have been given.\nWoodard and Campbell next contend that the trial judge abused his discretion by conducting their bench trial with the bench trial of Croft and the jury trial of Henderson. The recent supreme court case of People v. Schmitt (1989), 131 Ill. 2d 128, 545 N.E.2d 665, is dispositive of their argument. The supreme court held that, when severed cases are heard simultaneously, it is presumed that the court will consider only competent evidence against each of the parties; that is, it is presumed that the trier of fact will separate the evidence admitted against each codefendant. This case began with that clear understanding. Schmitt also held that it would be better if the trial judge recited his findings and reasonings in each case. The judge did that in this case. Significantly, he found Woodard and Campbell not guilty of murder. (Cf. People v. Rybka (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 394, 158 N.E.2d 17.) Schmitt also held that where a party agrees to the trial judge conducting simultaneous severed cases, the defendant is not in the position to later claim he was prejudiced. As noted, the defendants agreed to have their trial conducted along with the trial of Croft and Henderson. For these reasons, we judge that no reversible error occurred when Woodard and Campbell were tried with Croft and Henderson.\nThe last contention of Woodard and Campbell is that the trial judge abused his discretion in sentencing them to a 28-year prison term. The defendants were convicted of a Class X felony (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 12\u201414(d)) and were subject to a sentence of not less than 6 years and not more than 30 years (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 1005\u20148\u20141(a)(3)). The defendants concede that they were subject to an extended-term sentence under section 5 \u2014 5\u20143.2(b)(5) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 1005\u20145\u20143.2(b)(5)). Thus, the defendants were eligible for a maximum term of 60 years; the State recommended a term of 60 years. Considering the particularly heinous nature of the sexual crimes committed against Boyd by the four defendants, and the fact that Woodard and Campbell knew that Croft and Henderson said that Boyd should be killed, but they did nothing to save her, we do not believe that the judge abused his discretion in sentencing Woodard and Campbell to a term of 28 years\u2019 imprisonment. (See People v. Cox (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 268, 412 N.E.2d 541.) For these reasons, the judgments of conviction and the sentences of Campbell and Woodard are affirmed.\nCroft\u2019s sole contention is that the judge erred in considering the statements of Woodard, Campbell and Henderson at Croft\u2019s sentencing hearing. The record affirmatively shows that the judge did rely on their statements in his findings of fact before sentencing Croft. We will first consider Henderson\u2019s statement.\nWhen Henderson was first arrested he was questioned by Assistant State\u2019s Attorney Murray, who had already spoken with Croft. When Murray asked Henderson about Boyd\u2019s death, Henderson acknowledged being at Croft\u2019s residence on the night of the murder but denied involvement in her death. Murray told Henderson that his denial was \u201cinconsistent with what the other witnesses had told [him].\u201d Henderson then asked him \u201cwhat Croft had said.\u201d Murray asked Henderson whether he wanted to hear for himself, and Henderson said that he did. Croft was brought into the room and repeated to Henderson the statements he had previously given Murray concerning Boyd\u2019s death. Henderson then stated that he would tell \u201cwhat really happened.\u201d Henderson then gave an oral statement and agreed to give a court-reported statement.\nHenderson said that he was at Croft\u2019s residence at 6736 South Bell in Chicago with a group including Alonzo and Anthony Woodard, Kevin Campbell, Andrea Wilkes, a girl named Wendy and Kim Boyd. At 11 p.m. he drove Wendy and Andrea Wilkes home. When he returned he had a brief conversation with Anthony Woodard and Boyd. He became angry at Boyd because he believed she was cheating on Anthony by having sex with Anthony\u2019s brother Alonzo. Henderson called Anthony and Boyd in a separate room where he asked Boyd why she was doing this. Boyd responded with a \u201csmart remark,\u201d so he struck her in the head with a roll of wallpaper. Boyd then removed her pants, and Henderson called Alonzo Woodard, Croft and Campbell into the room. Campbell said, \u201cGive me some pussy.\u201d Henderson told Boyd to \u201csuck [his] dick,\u201d which she did. Campbell then had vaginal intercourse with Boyd. Croft in the meantime was forcing Boyd to engage in an act of oral copulation with him. After Croft and Campbell ejaculated, Croft tried to have vaginal intercourse but could not maintain an erection. While Henderson stuck his penis in the victim\u2019s vagina from a rear position, Alonzo forced Boyd to engage in an act of oral copulation.\nAt one point Henderson left the room to answer the doorbell when a man named Leroy and Leroy\u2019s girlfriend arrived. Henderson told Leroy that the other men were in the room \u201cgetting laid.\u201d Henderson then called Croft and Campbell out of the room and told them:\n\u201cWe raped her, we got to do something with her. We can\u2019t let her go because if we let her go, she said she wouldn\u2019t do anything; but if I was a girl, I would.\u201d\nCroft agreed and suggested they take Boyd \u201cdown to the railroad tracks.\u201d Henderson said, \u201cFuck that, you take her to the railroad tracks.\u201d At that point Croft went back to the room where Boyd was and returned with Campbell, who asked Henderson, \u201cWhat you going to do?\u201d Croft said, \u201cWe going to take her on the railroad tracks.\u201d Henderson disagreed and stated, \u201cThere\u2019s got to be a better way. *** We ought to kill her, man, because I\u2019m not going to spend no time in jail for a bitch.\u201d Henderson then left the residence and \u201cjump-started\u201d Leroy\u2019s car, which was parked in front of the house. When he returned, Croft, Campbell and Anthony Woodard were waiting at the rear door. At the request of Croft and Campbell, Henderson drove his car to the rear of the house. At that time Boyd was blindfolded with a pair of pants. Croft said they should put her in the front, but Henderson opened the trunk of the car, and Campbell and Croft put the victim in the trunk.\nCroft suggested they drive to his girlfriend's house. They then drove to an alley off Carpenter Street. When they opened the trunk of the car, Boyd pleaded with him to \u201cexplain.\u201d Henderson removed a knife from Croft\u2019s pants and stabbed Boyd in the throat twice. Croft said, \u201cFuck, the bitch ain\u2019t dead.\u201d He and Croft then removed Boyd from the trunk and placed her on the ground. Henderson stabbed her in the chest. Though she continued to plead for her life, Croft took the knife and stabbed her several times. While she lay on the ground, Henderson again stabbed her and Croft noticed that she still was not dead. Croft then started stabbing Boyd in the head. Henderson then \u201cgot nervous\u201d and told Croft that he \u201cknew if she lived, we\u2019re going to get caught. So I might as well finish her off.\u201d Henderson told Murray, \u201cI started finishing her off. I stabbed her in the behind, once in the leg and once in the stomach and that was it.\u201d Boyd, however, continued to move. Croft then suggested that they run her over with the car. Henderson told Croft that he \u201cwould take responsibility for the car\u201d and then drove the car within two inches of Boyd. Henderson backed up to the end of the alley and drove over Boyd\u2019s midsection. He ran over her again, and this time Boyd\u2019s foot hit the side fender. Boyd continued to move her arms and legs, so Henderson ran over her with the car for a third time.\nThe usual rules of evidence do not apply at a sentencing hearing. The test governing admissibility is whether the evidence is relevant and reliable. (People v. Johnson (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 253, 538 N.E.2d 1118.) Hearsay testimony which meets the relevance and reliability test is admissible at a sentencing hearing. People v. Foster (1987), 119 Ill. 2d 69, 518 N.E.2d 82.\nThe principal case dealing with the admissibility of a codefendant\u2019s statement is Lee v. Illinois (1986), 476 U.S. 530, 90 L. Ed. 2d 514, 106 S. Ct. 2056, in which the Supreme Court stated that a codefendant\u2019s statement is presumptively unreliable because the statement might well be the product of the codefendant\u2019s desire to shift or spread blame, exonerate himself or divert attention to another. The Lee court also held that, in considering whether the presumption of unreliability had been rebutted, the court could consider the circumstances surrounding the codefendant\u2019s statement and whether the co-defendant\u2019s statement \u201cinterlocks\u201d with the defendant\u2019s statement in all material aspects. 476 U.S. at 545, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 428-29, 106 S. Ct. at 2064.\nIn People v. Turner (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 540, 539 N.E.2d 1196, and People v. Rogers (1988), 123 Ill. 2d 487, 528 N.E.2d 667, the Illinois Supreme Court, following Lee, held that the rule governing the admissibility of codefendant\u2019s statements is applicable at sentencing hearings. In Turner, there were five separate accounts of the defendant\u2019s participation, including the defendant\u2019s version and that of his codefendants. The court held that matters to be considered were whether the codefendants had an opportunity to contrive their defense, and whether their statements did not interlock with the defendant\u2019s statement or other evidence on significant aspects of the offense involving the degree of the defendant\u2019s planning and participation. The supreme court remanded for a new hearing, holding that the statement of the codefendant did not interlock with the defendant\u2019s statement on significant aspects of the offense.\nIn our judgment, the evidence did not overcome the presumption of unreliability and Henderson\u2019s confession should not have been considered in the sentencing of Croft. After being arrested, Henderson refused to give a statement other than to say that he was present at Croft\u2019s house. He denied any wrongdoing. The assistant State\u2019s Attorney told Henderson that his denial was inconsistent with what the other witnesses had said. The assistant State\u2019s Attorney did not identify the witnesses, but Henderson asked only what Croft had said. When he was confronted with Croft\u2019s statement, Henderson said he would tell \u201cwhat really happened.\u201d The most reasonable inference to be drawn from that sequence of events is that Henderson wanted to get even with Croft. Although the statements of Croft and Henderson did \u201cinterlock\u201d on many aspects, they differed in two crucial aspects. Croft denied any sexual contact with Boyd, and he denied any active participation in the acts that took her life. Indeed, according to his statement he tried to talk Henderson out of harming her. He said that he told Henderson to give her some food and let her go home.\nThe State argues that, because Henderson was not trying to shift the blame to Croft and to exonerate himself, discrepancies between his statement and that of Croft are not significant. This argument was recently rejected in People v. Mahaffey (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 388, 539 N.E.2d 1172, decided after this case was heard in the circuit court. We conclude, therefore, that Henderson\u2019s statements should not have been admitted at Croft\u2019s sentencing hearing.\nWe turn now to the admissibility of the statements of Woodard and Campbell. The pertinent parts of Campbell\u2019s statement are as follows.\nCroft engaged in an act of oral copulation with Boyd. When Boyd asked Campbell to help her, Henderson struck her with a roll of wallpaper and Croft kicked her in the head. Croft placed his buttocks on Boyd\u2019s face and told her to \u201click [his] ass.\u201d Croft told Henderson they would have to kill her, and Henderson agreed. Croft told Boyd, \u201cIt is all over for you,\u201d and Croft picked up a knife from the kitchen drawer as they were leaving.\nWoodard\u2019s statement was substantially the same as Campbell\u2019s. In addition he said that Croft told them, \u201cWfiiy don\u2019t you all get some[?]\u201d When Campbell refused, Croft said he \u201chad something on him.\u201d Croft punched Boyd in the ribs. Boyd told Woodard that Henderson and Croft said they were going to kill her, and she asked for Woodard\u2019s help. Woodard asked Croft and Henderson to let her go, and they refused. As Croft led Boyd out the door, Croft picked up a knife.\nIn our judgment the statements of Campbell and Woodard were damaging to Croft and were at variance with his statement. We note also that Woodard and Campbell told Murray that the first suggestion to kill Boyd came from Croft, which was contrary to the statement of Henderson. We judge that the statements of Campbell and Woodard also should not have been admitted at Croft\u2019s sentencing hearing.\nFor these reasons, we vacate the sentence of Croft and remand the cause for a new sentencing hearing. We mean to imply no lack of confidence in the impartiality of the trial judge, but, under the circumstances, the resentencing should take place before a different judge. See People v. Dean (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 344, 509 N.E.2d 618.\nAppeal No. 1 \u2014 87\u20142222, Judgment affirmed.\nAppeal No. 1 \u2014 87\u20142223, Judgment affirmed.\nAppeal No. 1 \u2014 87\u20142083, Judgment of sentence vacated and cause remanded with instructions.\nRAKOWSKI, P.J., and McNAMARA, J. concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE EGAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Karen Daniel, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant Curtis Croft.", "Earl L. Washington, of Chicago, for appellants Kevin Campbell and Alonzo Woodard.", "John O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb and David R. Butzen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CURTIS CROFT et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (6th Division)\nNos. 1\u201487\u20142083, 1\u201487\u20142222, 1\u201487\u20142223 cons.\nOpinion filed March 15, 1991.\nKaren Daniel, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant Curtis Croft.\nEarl L. Washington, of Chicago, for appellants Kevin Campbell and Alonzo Woodard.\nJohn O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb and David R. Butzen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0496-01", "first_page_order": 518, "last_page_order": 531 }