{ "id": 2707059, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Bates, a/k/a Frank Bey, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bates", "decision_date": "1975-01-24", "docket_number": "No. 58967", "first_page": "748", "last_page": "752", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "25 Ill. App. 3d 748" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "282 N.E. 2d 777", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Ill.App.3d 997", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2917103 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/4/0997-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 N.E.2d 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 Ill. 2d 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2794341 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "538" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/23/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "311 N.E.2d 173", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 Ill.App.3d 1081", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2609651 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/18/1081-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 N.E.2d 309", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Ill.2d 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5332878 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/17/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 N.E.2d 21", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "48 Ill.2d 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2908107 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/48/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 F.2d 310", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2034912, 3659998 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/375/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "476 F.2d 66", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2262076 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/476/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 F.Supp. 1331", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3456412 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/354/1331-01" ] }, { "cite": "499 F.2d 29", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1171059 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/499/0029-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 642, "char_count": 10978, "ocr_confidence": 0.685, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.328679253497778e-07, "percentile": 0.7908322068197798 }, "sha256": "3e075c304779ab547f157b481d75a80d49378420bca2e7497c74de013a0ab0df", "simhash": "1:cbb3b250b75dcb5c", "word_count": 1865 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:56.200740+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. Frank Bates, a/k/a Frank Bey, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFrank Bates (hereinafter defendant) and a co-defendant, Ricky Smith, were jointly tried before a jury and found guilty of murder. Defendant was sentenced to a term of from 25 to 75 years. Smith does not join in this appeal.\nOn appeal it is contended that (1) the admission of the coerced testimony of the State\u2019s key witness violated defendant\u2019s right to due process of law and (2) the evidence produced by the State was insufficient to support defendant\u2019s conviction.\nOn March 5, 1972, at approximately 7:45 P.M., the body of Charles Donnell Mitchell was found in an alley behind a residence at 4719 South Langley, Chicago. An autopsy revealed that the cause of Mitchell\u2019s death was a bullet wound in the chest. Defendant and Ricky Smith were charged with murder.\nAt trial Penny Lewis testified for the State that she had known Mitchell for approximately 4 years prior to his death. She admitted that she is a drug addict and a prostitute. About a week before Mitchell\u2019s death she saw him at the Lady Woods Lounge at Madison and Oakley. Mitchell asked her to hold some heroin for him, and she placed it in her bra. He told her that he wanted to find customers for the narcotic. Later that evening she accompanied Mitchell to a \u201cshooting gallery\u201d located at 1965 West Warren. \u201cA shooting gallery is a place where jun-Ides go to take off, shoot dope.\u201d There were several people at the Warren Boulevard address. One of them was a man she knew as \u201cFrenchy.\u201d When she arrived, an individual who claimed that he was a policeman was attempting to rob the people in the \u201cshooting gallery.\u201d Mitchell and the others were able to subdue him and tie him up. Some time later defendant and Smith arrived. Mitchell told them that the man who was tied up had attempted to rob them of their heroin. Defendant and Smith took the man outside. When they returned, defendant accused Mitchell of being a liar. Defendant and Smith lined up everyone in the \u201cshooting gallery\u201d and began to conduct a search. She pulled out the drugs and some money which Mitchell had given her. As she was doing this, Mitchell ran out the door and escaped.\nMary Bryant testified for the State that at approximately 7 P.M. on March 5, 1972, she received a phone call from a man whose voice she did not recognize. The man told her that her son owed him $40. She responded, \u2018Where is Donnell, can I speak to him?\u201d Mitchell was put on the phone. He said, \u201cMama, you have $70 of my money, we are coming to get it.\u201d She replied, \u201cDonnell, please * * * I don\u2019t have the money. Please don\u2019t bring no mens to my house * * *. You have to stand the consequences yourself.\u201d The conversation was then ended. Her son sounded nervous when he spoke to her.\nGeorge Mosely testified for the State that he was awaiting trial for violation of probation. His nickname is \u201cFrenchy.\u201d On February 18 or 19 he had been at the \u201cshooting gallery\u201d and heard Mitchell ask defendant if he could sell heroin for him. Three days later Mosely saw defendant give some drugs to Mitchell and warn him \u201c[i]f you fuck up my drugs or fuck up my money I am going to do something to you.\u201d Mosely was in the \u201cshooting gallery\u201d about a week before Mitchell\u2019s death. His testimony substantially corroborated that given by Penny Lewis conceming the events of that day. He testified in addition that when Mitchell ran out of the \u201cshooting gallery,\u201d codefendant Smith said, \u201cDon\u2019t worry about that punk. We will get him.\u201d\nOn March 5, 1972, Mosely was at the shooting gallery. Defendant and Smith arrived and forced him to accompany them as they searched for Fred Brown who, they had been told, robbed two people at the shooting gallery. While they were searching for Brown, Mosely saw Mitchell walking on Damen Avenue near Madison Street. Defendant and Smith forced Mitchell into their car and asked him for $200. Mitchell said that his \u201cwoman\u201d had $40 and that his mother had $70. Mitchell then directed them to Fred Brown\u2019s home. Brown\u2019s wife told them that she and her husband had been robbed and that Mitchell was a liar. Defendant hit Mitchell, accused him of lying and forced him back into tire car. They drove to a gas station and parked within 3 feet of a public telephone. A call was placed to Mitchell\u2019s mother. Mosely\u2019s account of the conversation was substantially similar to that given by Mary Bryant. The call was made at approximately 6:30 or 6:45 P.M. After the phone call, defendant told Mosely:\n\u201cPunk, you get out of this car and you better not tell nobody that we got Donnell and we\u2019re going to take him out south and do him a job.\u201d\nMosely testified that \u201cdo a job\u201d is a slang expression meaning \u201ckill.\u201d\nOn cross-examination Mosely testified that the State\u2019s attorney had not made any promises concerning the disposition of the charge pending against him. On March 8, 1972, he was picked up by two policemen and taken to a station where he was placed in isolation. He was ordered to remove his clothes and then an officer named Tidmarsh struck and kicked him. He was tied to a chair, beaten and threatened with revocation of his probation, whereupon he gave a statement implicating defendant in Mitchell\u2019s murder.\nOn redirect examination Mosely testified that he had not been beaten since the night he was taken into custody, and that his testimony was not the result of coercion or threats.\nChicago Police Officer Andre Zehm testified that he arrested defendant on March 20, 1972, at 4554 South Drexel where he was hiding. This address is approximately two blocks from the spot where Mitchell\u2019s body was found.\nNo evidence was presented on behalf of defendant.\nOpinion\nThe State concedes that Mosely was \u201cmistreated by some Chicago policemen\u201d after he was taken into custody on March 8, 1972. Defendant contends that due to this \u201cmistreatment,\u201d Mosely\u2019s trial testimony must be deemed \u201ccoerced\u201d and that the admission of such \u201ccoerced\u201d testimony constitutes so great a deprivation of due process of law that his conviction must be reversed.\nSince this is an issue of first impression in Illinois, defendant has relied upon two recent Federal court decisions, LaFrance v. Bohlinger (1st Cir. 1974), 499 F.2d 29, and Bradford v. Johnson (E.D. Mich. 1972), 354 F.Supp. 1331, aff\u2019d, 476 F.2d 66. We feel this reliance is misplaced. LaFrance deals exclusively with the use of a post-arrest statement, wrung from a witness through beatings and threats, for purposes of impeaching his trial testimony. Bradford merely stands for the proposition that testimony given under the continuing application of police and prosecutorial coercion is inherently untrustworthy and consequently its use at trial constitutes a denial of the accused\u2019s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is to be noted that in Bradford the witness recanted his trial testimony in an affidavit \u201cto the effect that his testimony at petitioner\u2019s trial was untrue and was given only because of fear for his personal safety and that of his family.\u201d (Bradford, at 1334.) In the instant case we do not believe that Mosely\u2019s trial testimony was the result of such continuing coercion. When asked on redirect examination whether he was testifying \u201cunder any coercion or threat,\u201d Mosely replied, \u201cNo, sir.\u201d The record further indicates that over 6 months elapsed between the date he was taken into custody and defendant\u2019s trial. There is absolutely no indication that during this time Mosely was again beaten or threatened. Moreover, there is no indication that Mosely testified falsely; key portions of his account of the events culminating in Mitchell\u2019s murder were corroborated by the testimony of Penny Lewis and Mary Bryant. On the basis of this record we have no doubt that Mosely\u2019s testimony was the \u201cfruit of his own reflection and volition\u201d and not the product of coercion. (Broten v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966), 375 F.2d 310.) We therefore find no error in the admission of this testimony.\nDefendant has also contended that the State\u2019s evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He claims that the State failed in its proof since it could produce only circumstantial evidence linking him to the murder.\nTo support a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence \u201cthe facts proved must be consistent with defendant\u2019s guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.\u201d (People v. Murdock, 48 Ill.2d 362, 367, 270 N.E.2d 21, 24.) However, the trier of fact is not required to search out a series of potential explanations compatible with innocence and elevate them to the status of a reasonable doubt (People v. Russell, 17 Ill.2d 328, 161 N.E.2d 309; People v. Little, 18 Ill.App.3d 1081, 311 N.E.2d 173) nor must it \u201cdisregard the inferences that flow naturally from the evidence before it.\u201d People v. Owens, 23 Ill. 2d 534, 538, 179 N.E.2d 630; People v. Hayes, 4 Ill.App.3d 997, 282 N.E. 2d 777.\nIn the instant case George Mosely testified that approximately 2 weeks before the murder defendant gave Mitchell a quantity of heroin to sell. At that time defendant warned Mitchell, \u201cIf you fuck up my drugs or fuck up my money, I am going to do something to you.\u201d Approximately 1 week before the murder Mitchell, who apparently feared that defendant believed he had cheated him, fled from the \u201cshooting gallery\u201d when defendant and Smith began to search the occupants of that building. Codefendant Smith then told those present, \u201cDon\u2019t worry about that punk. We will get him.\u201d On March 5, 1972, the date of the murder, Mosely testified that defendant struck Mitchell and called him a liar. Smith demanded that he produce $200. After Mitchell made a phone call to his mother in an unsuccessful attempt to raise the money, defendant told Mosely, \u201c* * * you better not tell nobody that we got Donnell and we\u2019re going to take him out south and do him a job.\u201d Within an hour after defendant made this expression of his intent to kill him, Mitchell\u2019s body was found on the south side. Two weeks later defendant was found hiding in an apartment two blocks from where the body was found. We believe that this web of highly incriminating circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore we affirm the judgment.\nAffirmed.\nLORENZ and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur.\nAlthough we have held that under the facts and circumstances of the instant case defendant\u2019s right to due process of law has not been violated, we do not intend our holding to signify approval of the actions of those police officers who took Mosely into custody.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER" } ], "attorneys": [ "James D. Montgomery and Diane M. Kinnard, both of Chicago, for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Jerome Charles Randolph, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Bates, a/k/a Frank Bey, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 58967;\nFirst District (5th Division)\nJanuary 24, 1975.\nJames D. Montgomery and Diane M. Kinnard, both of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Jerome Charles Randolph, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0748-01", "first_page_order": 772, "last_page_order": 776 }