{ "id": 5637652, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN TERRANOVA et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Terranova", "decision_date": "1977-05-20", "docket_number": "No. 76-1083", "first_page": "360", "last_page": "366", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "49 Ill. App. 3d 360" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "319 N.E.2d 764", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. 2d 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2958767 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/59/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 N.E.2d 16", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 Ill. 2d 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2760972 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/16/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 N.E.2d 166", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5404489 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 N.E.2d 557", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Ill. App. 3d 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2793113 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/32/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 S. Ct. 190", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 S. Ct. 100", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 L. Ed. 2d 66", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "409 U.S. 811", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6184581, 6185576, 6185385, 6185198, 6185999, 6185050, 6185820 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/409/0811-01", "/us/409/0811-05", "/us/409/0811-04", "/us/409/0811-03", "/us/409/0811-07", "/us/409/0811-02", "/us/409/0811-06" ] }, { "cite": "281 N.E.2d 617", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 Ill. 2d 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5391194 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/51/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 N.E.2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ill. App. 2d 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2585129 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/72/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 N.E.2d 397", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Ill. App. 2d 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1580204 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/123/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 N.E.2d 675", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 Ill. App. 2d 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2561657 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/80/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 N.E.2d 809", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill. 2d 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2827163 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/30/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 N.E.2d 239", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 Ill. App. 3d 736", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2871194 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/33/0736-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.E.2d 874", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "381 Ill. 460", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2557487 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/381/0460-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 N.E.2d 76", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Ill. 2d 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2841109 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/32/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 N.E.2d 856", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ill. 2d 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2933485 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/54/0280-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 773, "char_count": 14151, "ocr_confidence": 0.876, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.938830459904507e-08, "percentile": 0.5010504473426829 }, "sha256": "77c4171e1c8cb68de5043066967fa289e7be95d31548de39f8c7facdcf604df7", "simhash": "1:dd7fa2ddfd7e2413", "word_count": 2365 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:40.599780+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. JOHN TERRANOVA et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a bench trial, defendants were each convicted of the offense of aggravated battery and sentenced to serve five years probation conditioned upon serving a one-year term of periodic imprisonment. They contend it was error to exclude evidence on the bias of the State\u2019s witnesses, to admit evidence of other offenses, and to impose conditions of one year periodic imprisonment upon their sentences.\nThe following pertinent evidence was adduced at trial.\nFor the State\nHenry Pascual\nOn January 24,1974, at approximately 6:51 p.m. he was standing at the southeast corner of Palmer Street and Drake Avenue and his friend, Gregory Buenfil, was standing near the southwest comer. Although it was nighttime, the intersection was well lighted by the city street lights and a tavern sign. A blue 1966 Chevrolet, with defendant Steven Hanley as the driver and another man in dark clothes as the passenger, approached from the east travelling west on Palmer Street. Hanley was wearing a tan hat. The automobile turned south on Drake and stopped approximately 30 feet from the intersection and 14 feet from where he was standing. Three shots were fired from the car and one of these was in his direction. He did not see if Hanley or the passenger fired the shots. After the car left, he saw George Von Liski lying on the ground and carried Von Liski to the sidewalk. When the police arrived he told them that defendants had shot Von Liski.\nOn cross-examination he admitted his brother Victor was arrested and incarcerated for assaulting Hanley\u2019s brother Ricky. The State objected to a question concerning whether Pascual had been in court during his brother\u2019s assault trial. Defendant\u2019s counsel offered to prove the existence of a vendetta between the State\u2019s witnesses and defendants. However, before the trial court ruled on the motion defense counsel stated \u201c \u00b0 \u00b0 \u00b0 we will proceed and I will stay away from this aspect of it until later in my cross examination.\u201d\nHe admitted that he saw the car for less than one minute and that he ducked when the first shot was fired at him. Hanley wanted to shoot him because Hanley\u2019s brother had been hurt. His own brother Victor had gone to jail as a result of that incident. Buenfil told him Terranova\u2019s name before the police arrived.\nGregory Buenfil\nHe was standing on the southwest corner of the intersection which was well lighted by the street lights and by a grocery store\u2019s and a tavern\u2019s signs. He recognized Hanley, whom he had known approximately five months, as the driver of the automobile. He identified Hanley\u2019s tan hat. Terranova, whom he had known approximately one year, was a passenger in the car. Terranova was wearing sunglasses and dark clothing. When the car stopped, Terranova stuck his right arm out the front seat passenger\u2019s window, bent it around the car\u2019s front windshield, and fired a shot in the direction of the southeast comer of the intersection. Terranova then straightened his arm and fired two more shots at Buenfil. He did not see Pascual until after the shooting.\nOn cross-examination, the State\u2019s objection to defendants\u2019 question \u201cIn fact you shot him [Hanley] in the leg, didn\u2019t you, and pleaded guilty, didn\u2019t you?\u201d \u2014 was sustained. However, he later admitted that he was committed by the Juvenile Division for shooting Hanley in the knee.\nHe was not friendly with Hanley or Terranova. He was able to see defendants that evening despite the fact that he was standing 40 feet from the car and that he was not wearing the glasses prescribed for his one bad eye.\nGeorge Von Liski\nAs he approached his apartment building\u2019s front door at 2156 North Drake on that evening, he was shot from behind through the right leg and creased on the left leg. He did not see who fired the shots. In addition, he substantially corroborated the testimony of the prior State witnesses concerning the intersection, the lighting conditions and the car\u2019s movements.\nChicago Police Officer George Grzeski\nHe received a description of the assailant\u2019s vehicle and found the vehicle parked in an alley in the 3500 block of West Fullerton Avenue a few blocks from the scene of the shooting. The following colloquy then occurred:\n\u201cQ. When you found the vehicle, what, if anything, did you do?\nA. We first ran a check to see if the vehicle and the license plates were stolen.\nQ. Officer, what was the result of that check?\nA. Result came back that the vehicle and the license plates were indeed stolen.\nQ. Officer, what, if anything, did you do at that point?\n[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I am going to object to any further examination with reference to the license plate or on the vehicle.\n[STATE]: We won\u2019t go into it any further.\u201d\nOn the front seat of the vehicle was a tan, wide-brimmed hat. When he gave the hat to officer Manshreck in the tactical interrogation room, Hanley claimed the hat.\nChicago Police Officer Louis Ferraro\nHe responded to a radio call identifying defendants as the assailants. Because he knew both defendants, he and his partner, Officer Manshreck, proceeded directly to Hanley\u2019s home at 2454 North St. Louis Avenue. He arrested Hanley in the bathroom and Terranova in a bedroom closet. When he received the tan hat from Officer Grzeski, Hanley claimed it and put it on his head.\nOn cross-examination, he responded that he received the names of witnesses Pascual and Buenfil in his stolen auto report from the witnesses themselves.\n\u25a0 For defendants\nDefendant Steven Hanley on his own behalf\nHe was driving Terranova home in the 1966 Chevrolet at the time of the shooting. He admitted owning the tan hat. When they arrived at the intersection of Palmer and Drake he told Terranova to lock his door because they were in the neighborhood of the Imperial Gangsters. The intersection was not well lighted. As they were crossing Palmer a car pulled in front of them and he stopped his car. He put the car in reverse and heard a shot. He drove to Central Park Avenue and abandoned the car in an alley because they were being chased.\nHe used to be a member of the Vice Lords gang. Buenfil shot him in the knee during that same winter. He had also been shot in the back of the head and his brother Ricky\u2019s jaw had been broken by a lead pipe during a fight with the Imperial Gangsters.\nDefendant John Terranova on his own behalf\nHe substantially corroborated Hanley\u2019s account of the incident. In addition, he denied having or firing a gun. He did not notify the police that he had been shot at. He was nervous and hid in the closet at Hanley\u2019s house because he was frightened by the policemen\u2019s guns. After Hanley testified against Victor Pascual, Terranova\u2019s friendship with Buenfil diminished.\nAfter defendants were found guilty, a hearing in aggravation and mitigation was held. Officer William Hanhardt of the Chicago Police Department testified that Hanley was a counselor in his District\u2019s youth program and that Terranova\u2019s involvement with the gang was minimal. In his opinion, both defendants were of immeasurable value to society and nothing would be gained by sending them to jail. In addition, several witnesses testified that Terranova was a nice young man who helped his father on his fishing boat.\nOpinion\nThe State contends defendants\u2019 failure to make a motion for new trial waives their contentions on review citing People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280, 296 N.E.2d 856, and People v. Irwin (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 441, 207 N.E.2d 76. In those cases, following jury trials defendants failed to specify in their written post-trial motions the errors they argued on appeal. The Supreme Court held that this failure constituted a waiver of the issue on review. However, the court has also held that a post-trial motion is not necessary in a bench trial to preserve the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence for review. (People v. Hoffman (1942), 381 Ill. 460, 45 N.E.2d 874.) This court\u2019s Third District has held that a post-trial motion is not necessary to preserve error in a bench trial when the error has been brought to the attention of the trial court by motion or by timely objection, thus, giving the trial court the opportunity to correct the error involved. People v. Guynn (1975), 33 Ill. App. 3d 736, 338 N.E.2d 239.\nMoreover, defects affecting a substantial right may be noticed under Supreme Court Rule 615(a) even though they were not brought to the attention of the trial court whenever the evidence of guilt is closely balanced. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 615(a); People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280, 296 N.E.2d 856; People v. Bradley (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 597, 198 N.E.2d 809.) In the instant case, the alleged errors could have affected defendants\u2019 substantial constitutional rights to fair trials because they bore directly upon the credibility of the State\u2019s identification witnesses. In a case where the testimony of two witnesses identifying defendants and their automobile must be weighed against the testimony of the two defendants denying their complicity, we believe that the general waiver rule must be relaxed and the alleged defects examined to determine if any prejudicial error, in fact, occurred.\nDefendants contend it was error to exclude evidence of the bias of the State\u2019s witnesses. They argue that the trial court erroneously refused to allow cross-examination of Gregory Buenfil as to whether he had shot defendant Hanley on a previous occasion. However, following the court\u2019s initial ruling, this exact evidence was later admitted on two separate occasions. In the first, Buenfil admitted that the Juvenile Division of the circuit court found that he had shot Hanley in the knee one week after this occurrence. In the second, defendant Hanley testified that Buenfil shot him in the knee during the winter of 1974. Even if the court\u2019s initial ruling was erroneous, the subsequent admission of improperly excluded evidence cured the prejudicial effect that may have been suffered. People v. Armstrong (1967), 80 Ill. App. 2d 77, 224 N.E.2d 675.\nDefendants next argue the trial court improperly excluded certain cross-examination of Henry Pascual concerning the incarceration of his brother, Victor, for assaulting defendant Hanley\u2019s brother, Ricky. Although the trial court never sustained the State\u2019s objection and, therefore, defendants could have pursued this line of inquiry, we need not dispose of defendants\u2019 argument on that basis. Prior to the State\u2019s objection Pascual testified that his brother had been incarcerated for assaulting Ricky Hanley. Defendant Hanley later testified that Pascual and his gang had severely beaten his brother. Defendant Terranova also testified about this incident. Consequently, it is clear that any possible bias was presented to the trial court and therefore no prejudicial error occurred.\nDefendants also argue it was error to exclude extrinsic evidence in the form of defendant Hanley\u2019s direct testimony about a statement by Buenfil which would have shown Buenfil\u2019s bias against the defendants. A proper foundation must be laid for subsequent impeachment for bias. (People v. Curtis (1970), 123 Ill. App. 2d 384, 259 N.E.2d 397; People v. Payton (1966), 72 Ill. App. 2d 240, 218 N.E.2d 518.) In the instant case, defendants never questioned Buenfil about this alleged statement. Consequently, the subsequent examination of Hanley was improper because Buenfil had not been given the opportunity to admit or to deny making the statement.\nMoreover, defendants did not tender an offer of proof to show the substance of the excluded testimony. (People v. Bridgeforth (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 52, 281 N.E.2d 617, appeal dismissed 409 U.S. 811, 34 L. Ed. 2d 66, 93 S. Ct. 100, and 409 U.S. 811, 34 L. Ed. 2d 66, 93 S. Ct. 190; People v. Warren (1975), 32 Ill. App. 3d 218, 336 N.E.2d 557.) As a result, it is impossible for us now to tell whether the statement, if any, was admissible.\nDefendants next contend it was error to admit accusations of other offenses, specifically that their automobile was a stolen vehicle. In light of defendants\u2019 failure to make a proper and timely objection to this evidence and the presumption that the judge in a bench trial considers only relevant evidence, we reject defendants\u2019 second contention. People v. Queen (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 560, 310 N.E.2d 166; People v. Grodkiewicz (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 192, 157 N.E.2d 16.\nDefendants finally contend it was error to impose conditions of one year periodic imprisonment upon their five-year probation sentences. Supreme Court Rule 615(b)(4) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 615(b)(4)) allows us to reduce the punishment imposed by a trial court, but generally we will refrain from modifying the sentence of a trial judge who was able to observe the defendants and assess the factors in aggravation and mitigation unless a clear abuse of his discretionary powers can be shown. People v. Morgan (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 276, 319 N.E.2d 764.\nHere, defendants were each convicted of aggravated battery after the trial court found they caused great bodily harm to George Von Liski while using a deadly weapon. Aggravated battery is a Class 3 felony subject to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a maximum in excess of one year, but not exceeding ten years. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, pars. 12 \u2014 4(d), 1005 \u2014 8\u20141(b)(4).) Nonetheless, the trial judge chose to sentence defendants only to a period of probation with the condition of a one-year term of periodic imprisonment. When we consider the serious nature of an offense committed with a gun on a public street as well as the mitigating testimony presented in defendants\u2019 behalves, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretionary powers.\nAffirmed.\nMEJDA and WILSON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LORENZ" } ], "attorneys": [ "Julius Lucius Echeles and Frederick F. Cohn, both of Chicago for appellants.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Myra J. Brown, and Richard J. Barr, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN TERRANOVA et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 76-1083\nOpinion filed May 20, 1977.\nJulius Lucius Echeles and Frederick F. Cohn, both of Chicago for appellants.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Myra J. Brown, and Richard J. Barr, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0360-01", "first_page_order": 382, "last_page_order": 388 }