{ "id": 2604582, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE ROACH, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Roach", "decision_date": "1991-04-30", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201489\u20140656", "first_page": "119", "last_page": "125", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 119" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "500 N.E.2d 728", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 Ill. App. 3d 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3459317 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/149/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "557 N.E.2d 571", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "573-74" }, { "page": "574" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 Ill. App. 3d 792", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2467881 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "795-96" }, { "page": "797" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/199/0792-01" ] }, { "cite": "518 N.E.2d 100", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 2d 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3193621 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/119/0119-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 N.E.2d 1217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1219-20" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Ill. App. 3d 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3327923 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/65/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "566 N.E.2d 222", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "226" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 Ill. 2d 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3238368 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "401-02" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/141/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 N.E.2d 1124", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 Ill. 2d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5550081 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/122/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "289 N.E.2d 601", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 Ill. 2d 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2927578 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/53/0062-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 697, "char_count": 12335, "ocr_confidence": 0.777, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6487132821693172e-07, "percentile": 0.6923505965019582 }, "sha256": "572933e5cc1c4252d7a29c0acad4009eae3d2c3bde4866816b046282ba0f315f", "simhash": "1:d2d23880b64d418e", "word_count": 2199 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:27.836966+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. WILLIE ROACH, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SLATER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Willie Roach, appeals his convictions for first degree murder and aggravated battery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, pars. 9\u2014l(a)(2), 12\u20144(b)(l))- The sole issue on appeal is whether the prosecutor committed reversible error in his closing argument. We reverse.\nAccording to the record, Henry Tyler testified that on May 28, 1987, around 9:45 p.m., he was riding in a car with Leonard Tyler, Greg Harris, and Vorline Moffett. Leonard was driving, and Henry sat in the front passenger seat. As they proceeded down Iowa Street in Joliet, a car attempted to pass them on the right. The car, which Henry described as a cream-colored Oldsmobile 98 with a dark top, struck their car in the right rear and front panels and caused it to stall. Leonard restarted the car and pulled alongside the other car, which had stopped at an intersection. Henry was about four feet from the other car, and the windows of both cars were open.\nHenry testified that while the cars were stopped, Leonard asked the driver of the other car, \u201cWhat the fuck up?\u201d The driver did not respond but simply looked at them three times. He then pulled out a gun and fired several shots at them in rapid succession. Henry ducked down to avoid the shots. When he sat up, he discovered that he had been wounded in the shoulder and Leonard had been shot.\nHenry identified the defendant as the man in the other car. Although he did not know the defendant\u2019s name at that time, he had seen him on about six occasions prior to the shooting. In one of those instances, they had briefly spoken while they were in a tavern.\nOn the evening of the shooting, Henry told the police that he could recognize the shooter. When he was shown a series of photos, he picked out a picture of someone other than the defendant and said it resembled the shooter. A few days later, he examined another photo array. At that time, he identified a photo of the defendant as the shooter.\nVorline Moffett and Greg Harris generally corroborated Tyler\u2019s testimony about the occurrence. However, Moffett testified that although she knew the defendant prior to the shooting, she could not identify him as the shooter. Harris also stated that he could not identify the shooter.\nA physician testified that Leonard Tyler died that evening of a gunshot wound in the area of the heart.\nOfficer Ruben Coronado testified that he spoke to Henry on the night of the shooting. Henry told him that he recognized the gunman as someone he had seen in a tavern and had spoken to a couple of times. Henry described the defendant as being 5 feet 7 inches, but Coronado said the defendant was actually 5 feet 11 inches. Coronado also corroborated Henry\u2019s testimony about his selection of photographs from the photo arrays. Lastly, Coronado said that a check of the Secretary of State\u2019s records revealed that no vehicles matching the witnesses\u2019 description were registered in the defendant\u2019s name.\nTimothy Traver, the maintenance man at the defendant\u2019s apartment complex, testified that on May 29, 1987, the defendant asked him if anyone had been looking for him. He told Traver to tell anyone who inquired that he had never owned a car. Traver said that the defendant drove an older, cream-colored Buick or Oldsmobile, but he never saw him drive it after their conversation. Traver acknowledged that he had a previous conviction for rape.\nThe defendant testified that he did not own a car at the time of the shooting and the last car he owned was a 1982 Granada. On May 28, around 7 or 7:30 p.m., Walter Houston gave him a ride to the Oasis Tavern. The defendant did not leave until sometime between 10:40 and 11:15 p.m. He was driven home by Hank Jenkins, who died of a stroke prior to trial.\nThe defendant denied taking part in the shooting and said he did not own a gun. He also denied telling Traver to tell anyone that he did not own a car.\nWalter Houston testified that around 6:30 or 7 p.m. on the night of the incident, he drove the defendant to the Oasis Tavern. He also stated that in the eight years he had known the defendant, the only car the defendant owned was a white Grenada in 1984.\nPaul Dickerson testified that he tended bar at the Oasis on May 28, 1987. The defendant came into the bar between 7 and 8 p.m. and left between 11 and 11:30 p.m. Dickerson admitted that he told the police that he had given the defendant a ride home, although he had not actually done so. He explained that he had been questioned approximately a year after the incident, he had no idea what the police were talking about, and he did not know the defendant was in trouble. He also stated that at the time of the incident, the defendant did not own a car.\nFollowing closing arguments, the jury retired to deliberate around 2:30 p.m. At 10:30 p.m., the jurors informed the court that they could not make a decision. The court responded with a Prim instruction (Peo ple v. Prim (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 62, 289 N.E.2d 601). At 2:30 a.m., the jury found the defendant guilty of the murder of Leonard Tyler and the aggravated battery of Henry Tyler.\nFollowing a sentencing hearing, the court imposed concurrent terms of 20 years for murder and five years for aggravated battery.\nOn appeal, the defendant first contends that during closing arguments the prosecutor improperly stated his personal opinion regarding the witnesses\u2019 credibility. Specifically, he objects to the following remarks:\n\u201cWe knew that Willie Roach was presumed innocent the day he walked into this courtroom. We knew it the day that the Grand Jury charged this case. We know it now, and we accept that challenge.\n* * *\nAgain, we accepted that challenge and we think that Willie Roach has been proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.\n* * *\nHenry, when he testified, he told you about how he goes to see his mother every night. Well, to me, whether he sees her every night or not, to me it tells you that Henry is a family man, and I just got a feeling that he was sincere. That\u2019s all. Instead of saying to you, \u2018What the fuck up,\u2019 he said, \u2018What the F up.\u2019 And to me he just looks sincere. Okay? The same goes for Vorline. The same goes for Greg Harris.\nEvery one of these police officers, I mean, it is their job to investigate a murder, and what they do is they go out every day and they do their job and they \u2014 I think they were sincere.\n* * *\nI\u2019m sure that Mr. Loughran is going to make a big deal about a Felony conviction that Tim Traver had. Well, sure he had a Felony conviction. Does that mean he is a liar? I didn\u2019t get the feeling when he was on the witness stand that he was a liar. You know, maybe you don\u2019t want your daughter going out with him or something, but I just didn\u2019t get the feeling that he was a liar.\n* * *\nOne of the first things you heard out of Paul Dickerson\u2019s mouth was how he lied to Detective Coronado. Well, as soon as he told us that, I got this feeling in my stomach that I just \u2014 I can\u2019t buy anything he says when he tells me he is a \u2014 that he lied to Detective Coronado once before.\n* * *\nI got this feeling in my stomach as soon as he said he lied to Detective Coronado. I couldn\u2019t believe a word he said after that because not only that, but what if he is off by an hour?\n* * *\nAnd then we come to the testimony of Willie Roach. I had that feeling in my stomach again when Willie Roach testified because to me what Willie was doing when he got on the witness stand is he did his best to convey that he\u2019s a good old guy from Mississippi. You know what he didn\u2019t strike me as? He didn\u2019t strike me as a guy who\u2019s being wrongfully accused of a murder that he didn\u2019t do. He didn\u2019t strike me as a guy who is standing here saying, \u2018I was someplace else, I wasn\u2019t there.\u2019\n* * *\nWell, like I said, myself and Mr. McCabe have no doubt that Willie Roach was at the Oasis on May 28, 1987. But *** Willie Roach ended up with his Olds 98 that night.\u201d\nThe defendant did not object to the comments, nor did he raise them in his post-trial motion. Ordinarily, he must do both to preserve an issue for review. (People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 522 N.E.2d 1124.) However, we will still consider the comments to determine whether plain error occurred. 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a); People v. Mullen (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 394, 566 N.E.2d 222.\nWe begin our analysis by noting that the prosecutor, as the representative of the State of Illinois, stands in a special relation to the jury. He must therefore choose his words carefully so that he does not place the authority of his office behind the credibility of his witnesses. (People v. Valdery (1978), 65 Ill. App. 3d 375, 381 N.E.2d 1217.) He may express an opinion if it is based on the record. (People v. Johnson (1987), 119 Ill. 2d 119, 518 N.E.2d 100.) He may not, however, state his personal opinion regarding the veracity of a witness or vouch for a witness\u2019 credibility. People v. Wilson (1990), 199 Ill. App. 3d 792, 557 N.E.2d 571.\nThe State argues that the prosecutor\u2019s opinions were not prejudicial because they were based on the record. It also points out that both the prosecutor and the trial court informed the jury that closing arguments were not evidence. However, we find the State's arguments to be unavailing. Here, the prosecutor clearly and repeatedly stated his personal feelings about the witnesses\u2019 credibility. Most of his opinions were not based on the record. Rather, they were the sort of intuitive judgments that lie within the province of the jury. This form of argument has been repeatedly condemned. (Wilson, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 795-96, 557 N.E.2d at 573-74; Valdery, 65 Ill. App. 3d at 378, 381 N.E.2d at 1219-20.) We therefore find the comments to be error.\nThe remaining question is whether the comments constituted plain error. Plain error occurs where the error adversely affected the defendant\u2019s right to a fair trial or the evidence was closely balanced. Mullen, 141 Ill. 2d at 401-02, 566 N.E.2d at 226.\nGiven the large number of comments, we find it unnecessary to assess the prejudicial impact of each one. Rather, we find that their cumulative effect deprived the defendant of a fair trial. (See People v. Johnson (1986), 149 Ill. App. 3d 465, 500 N.E.2d 728.) We also find that the evidence in this case was closely balanced. The State\u2019s case was largely based on the identification by Henry Tyler, who testified that he briefly saw the defendant prior to the shooting. The defendant and two other witnesses testified to an alibi, and there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. Based on the foregoing, we hold that the comments were plain error.\nThe defendant also contends that the prosecutor misstated the law regarding the burden of proof. Specifically, he objects to the following statement:\n\u201cIf you find that Henry Tyler is a liar, he has a reason to lie, then you should find Willie Roach not guilty. But if you find that there is absolutely no reason for Mr. Tyler to lie and that this man lied, that his witnesses lied, don\u2019t be afraid to sign that guilty verdict, and I would ask that you do that.\u201d\nThe correct standard for a jury\u2019s consideration of the evidence \u201cis not whether one side is more believable, but whether, taking all of the evidence into consideration, guilt as to every essential element of the charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d (Wilson, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 797, 557 N.E.2d at 574.) Since the prosecutor\u2019s statement implied that the jury could reach a verdict simply by balancing the testimonies of each side\u2019s witnesses, we find that it was error. Taken with the other comments in this case, it strengthens the conclusion that this cause must be reversed on the grounds that the defendant did not receive a fair trial.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nGORMAN and McCUSKEY, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SLATER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Joseph N. Ehmann, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.", "Edward Burmila, Jr., State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (Jay P. Hoffman and John X. Breslin, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIE ROACH, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201489\u20140656\nOpinion filed April 30, 1991.\nJoseph N. Ehmann, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nEdward Burmila, Jr., State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (Jay P. Hoffman and John X. Breslin, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0119-01", "first_page_order": 141, "last_page_order": 147 }