{ "id": 5148678, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD J. McCORKLE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. McCorkle", "decision_date": "1993-01-08", "docket_number": "No. 3-92-0292", "first_page": "1014", "last_page": "1016", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "239 Ill. App. 3d 1014" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "478 N.E.2d 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 Ill. 2d 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3138930 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/106/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "440 N.E.2d 1248", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ill. 2d 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3091828 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/91/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "508 N.E.2d 687", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 Ill. 2d 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5543305 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/116/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 N.E.2d 1124", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 Ill. 2d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5550081 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/122/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "398 N.E.2d 68", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 Ill. App. 3d 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5608950 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/79/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 N.E.2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 Ill. 2d 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3106373 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/94/0303-01" ] }, { "cite": "485 N.E.2d 339", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 Ill. 2d 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3126650 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/109/0102-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 415, "char_count": 6181, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.5828155114230504e-08, "percentile": 0.2872005279072255 }, "sha256": "e6eed0a35e89a49fca304842db18ab733f117ff7c87eb155151a071c70e15f81", "simhash": "1:2be6207cf9778746", "word_count": 1023 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:51:04.850958+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SLATER and BARRY, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD J. McCORKLE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Donald J. McCorkle, was charged with criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, pars. 12-13, 12-16). Following a jury trial he was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and sentenced to three years\u2019 imprisonment. He appeals.\nThe record shows that the victim was a 16-year-old female. She baby-sat the defendant\u2019s daughter, Natalie, at the defendant's ex-wife\u2019s residence. The victim and Natalie eventually became friends. Natalie stayed overnight with the defendant during visitations, and occasionally the victim also stayed with them.\nThe victim testified about several incidents that occurred when she stayed overnight with the defendant. One night the defendant carried her into his room and placed her on his bed. He touched her and put his finger in her vagina. Another night the defendant called the victim into his bedroom, where he again sexually molested her. Finally, on a night before a trip to Great America, the defendant once again sexually molested her.\nThe victim said that she was subsequently admitted to a mental hospital. When she was released, she told Doris Angel what the defendant had done. The victim later called the defendant several times. She told him she was sorry and that she said he had molested her because she did not want to go back to the hospital. She believed that the defendant had something to do with her being committed to the hospital, and she was upset about not being able to see Natalie while she was hospitalized.\nThe defendant testified that he never sexually molested the victim. He stated that he once took her to his bedroom and laid her on his bed because she was hyperventilating. He also testified that on another night he heard noises. When he got up, he saw the victim standing in a dazed condition in front of his bathroom.\nNatalie testified that she never witnessed the defendant sexually molest the victim. She also said that she once observed the victim hyperventilate, and the defendant helped the victim into the house and put her on his bed.\nThe defendant\u2019s ex-wife, Lori Wirt, testified that the defendant spent quite a bit of time at the restaurant where the victim worked. The defendant went there at least once and often twice a day. She further testified that she was only 16 years old when she began dating the defendant. At that time, the defendant was 36 years old, and he had to sign a contract with Wirt\u2019s parents stating when and where he could see her.\nThe record also shows that the victim is mildly retarded. Psychiatric testimony established that she is hyperactive, restless, impulsive, and totally unpredictable in what she will say.\nDuring closing argument, the prosecutor rhetorically asked why someone in the defendant\u2019s position would go after \u201cjail bait.\u201d The prosecutor then noted that the defendant had gone after \u201cjail bait\u201d before when he dated Lori Wirt, and that it had been such a problem that he had to enter into a contract with Wirt\u2019s parents.\nThe defendant argues on appeal that he was deprived of a fair trial. Specifically, he claims that the testimony which established he dated his ex-wife when she was 16 years old was improper. He also claims that the prosecutor\u2019s closing argument stating that the defendant had a propensity for relationships with \u201cjail bait\u201d was improper. We agree.\nIt is well established that evidence of crimes or bad acts other than that for which a defendant is being tried is inadmissible if it is used solely to suggest that a defendant has a propensity to commit crimes. (People v. Adams (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 102, 485 N.E.2d 339; People v. Tiller (1982), 94 Ill. 2d 303, 447 N.E.2d 174.) Furthermore, it is improper for a prosecutor to make statements solely for the purpose of inflaming the passions and arousing the prejudices of the jury. People v. Witted (1979), 79 Ill. App. 3d 156, 398 N.E.2d 68.\nWe find that the prosecutor\u2019s examination of Lori Wirt was improper. The evidence prejudiced the defendant because it was used solely to imply that he had a propensity to commit sexual crimes with young women. The prosecutor then greatly exacerbated the prejudice in closing argument by asserting that the defendant had been' attracted to \u201cjail bait\u201d before.\nWe note that the defendant failed to object to the errors at trial or in his post-trial motion, thereby raising the possibility that he waived them. (People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 522 N.E.2d 1124; People v. Whitehead (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 425, 508 N.E.2d 687.) However, an exception to the waiver rule is the plain error doctrine. Plain error is restricted to the correction of grave errors or to situations where the case is close factually and fundamental fairness requires a new trial. People v. Huckstead (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 536, 440 N.E.2d 1248.\nOur review of the record in the instant case reveals that the evidence was close. The victim\u2019s testimony was confused and at times contradictory. There was little corroboration of her testimony, and there was also psychiatric testimony indicating that she had little reliability. Although the evidence was sufficient to meet the Collins standard on review (People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, 478 N.E.2d 267), we find that the evidence was so close that plain and reversible error occurred. We therefore reverse the conviction and remand the cause for further proceedings.\nBecause of our resolution of these issues, we need not address the sentencing issues raised by the defendant.\nWe reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nSLATER and BARRY, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Stephen Omolecki, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.", "Marshall E. Douglas, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rock Island (John X. Breslin and Terry A. Mertel, 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. DONALD J. McCORKLE, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3-92-0292\nOpinion filed January 8, 1993.\nStephen Omolecki, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nMarshall E. Douglas, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rock Island (John X. Breslin and Terry A. Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1014-01", "first_page_order": 1034, "last_page_order": 1036 }