{
  "id": 2523349,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Holmes et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Holmes",
  "decision_date": "1972-05-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 55755",
  "first_page": "708",
  "last_page": "713",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ill. App. 3d 708"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "124 Ill.App.2d 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1578957
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/124/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 Ill.App.2d 173",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2588448
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/70/0173-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill.App.2d 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2568060
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/78/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ill.2d 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2896442
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/45/0573-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 521,
    "char_count": 10590,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3024879056655427
    },
    "sha256": "3fc2ca5f1ca6ed8159ceb747a3dee98f26c69d28b438bd6ad0f0639971f93d32",
    "simhash": "1:8ee0bddcc40a129c",
    "word_count": 1769
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:48.814564+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. Johnny Holmes et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from judgments entered in the Circuit Court of Cook County.\nDefendants, Charles Dennis, Clyde Gunn and Donald Frisco, were indicted for the crimes of attempted escape and attempted murder. Defendant Clyde Gunn was also indicted for the crimes of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm and aggravated battery using a dangerous weapon. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, the defendants were found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced all defendants to terms of 15 to 20 years for attempted murder and seven to ten years for attempted escape. The terms are to run consecutively to each other and consecutively to any terms they are now serving. The trial court further sentenced Clyde Gunn to terms of eight to ten years for aggravated battery causing great bodily harm and one to five years for aggravated battery using a dangerous weapon. These terms are to run concurrently with the other sentences.\n[The appeal of defendant Johnny Holmes, previously joined herein, was dismissed prior to presentation of oral arguments.]\nThe issues presented on appeal are whether the defendants were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of attempted murder, and whether defendant Clyde Gunn was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated battery as charged in the indictments.\nOn March 25, 1969, the defendants were incarcerated in the maximum security section of the Cook County Jail. At the trial, Charles Dunigan, who was then a sergeant in charge of the basement area of Cook County Jail, testified that on the date in question, Officer Charles Plakas was in charge of the maximum security section of the jail which is located in the basement area. Eight prisoners were in the section on that date, three of them were the defendants.\nThe maximum security section is separated from the rest of the basement area by a metal door. In this section there are three cells, Cells Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively. At approximately 3:00 P.M., on the date in question, defendants Charles Dennis and Donald Frisco, and two other inmates, were in Cell No. 3. Defendant Clyde Gunn was not present but was in the course of returning to the maximum security section after having been in court.\nSergeant Dunigan testified he proceeded with Officer Sellers to the maximum security section to transfer the inmates of Cell No. 3. After opening Cell No. 3, Officer Sellers attempted to escort one of the inmates to Cell No. 1. At this time Officer Sellers was attacked by the inmate and a sharp object was placed at his neck. The inmate threatened to kill Officer Sellers if Sergeant Dunigan moved. While this was occurring, another inmate and defendants Frisco and Dennis came out of Cell No. 3. Defendant Frisco had a sharp object in his hand, subsequently identified as a spoon handle sharpened to a point.\nSergeant Dunigan further testified that one of the inmates involved held a razor affixed to a toothbrush handle to his neck and told him he would kill him if he moved. Defendants Dennis and Frisco, as well as another inmate, then subdued Officer Sellers.\nDefendants Dennis and Frisco removed the keys to Cell No. 2 from Sergeant Dunigan and released another inmate from the cell. The inmate whom they released was carrying a \u201czip gun.\u201d Sergeant Dunigan and Officer Sellers\u2019 uniforms were then removed by defendant Dennis and the two officers were handcuffed to Cell No. 3.\nWhile this was occurring, Officers Hatcher and Pierson were then escorting defendant Clyde Gunn to the maximum security section of the jail. Both guards testified substantially the same as to the next events: Officer Hatcher was standing at the door to the maximum security section. One of the inmates swung a chain which struck him over the right eye. Defendant Gunn simultaneously attacked the officer with his fist, striking him in the mouth. Officer Hatcher further testified his lip was injured and he sustained injuries to the inside of his mouth.\nShortly thereafter, the Superintendent of Cook County Jail, Winston Moore, his assistant, Charles English, and a number of guards responded to a radio call that a guard was in need of help and they proceeded to the maximum security section. The superintendent testified to a struggle between himself, his assistant and the inmates in which the inmates were restrained. In addition, various items including a heavy metal chain, double-edged razor blades, a toothbrush handle with a razor affixed to one end, a spoon handle sharpened to a point and a block of wood with a metal tube affixed to it were recovered.\nSubsequent to these events, the defendants were tried as charged before a jury, found guilty and sentenced. It is from these findings by the trial court that defendants herein appeal.\nDefendants contend they were not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of attempted murder. As a basis for their claim, defendants first contend the State did not prove all the elements of attempted murder.\nTwo elements must be present to constitute an attempt: (1) intent to commit a specific offense, and (2) an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 8 \u2014 4.) As to the element of specific intent, the Supreme Court in People v. Koshiol (1970), 45 Ill.2d 573, stated:\n\u201c* * # the law is well settled that intent is a state of mind, and, if not admitted, can be shown by surrounding circumstances, and intent to take fife may be inferred from the character of the assault, the use of a deadly weapon and other circumstances.\u201d\nBased on the character of the assault and the threatened use of a deadly weapon on Sergeant Dunigan, we believe the requisite intent is present in the instant case.\nThe defendants also claim no substantial step to commit murder was shown by the State. They base their claim upon the fact that Sergeant Dunigan was not bruised, cut or injured in any manner so as to come within the elements of murder. In People v. Paluch (1966), 78 Ill.App.2d 356, the court, in discussing the element of attempt, stated:\n\u201cIn order to constitute an attempt, it is not requisite that the act of the defendant is necessarily the last deed immediately preceding that which would render the substantive crime complete.\"\nIn the instant case the evidence is uncontroverted that a razor was put to Sergeant Dunigan\u2019s neck and his life was threatened. Based on this evidence, we believe the State has shown the defendants took a substantial step to commit murder.\nA second contention presented by the defendants in claiming the State did not prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted murder is the State failed to prove accountability and community of purpose among the defendants.\nThe record reflects the defendants took affirmative steps to arm themselves and participate in the events of the attempted escape. The record also reflects the defendants lent their countenance and approval to the crime. We see no reason to doubt the defendants all were attempting to escape. In light of this fact, any crime committed by one of their number in bringing about that escape was the act of all. The attempted murder of Sergeant Dunigan was in the course of the attempted escape, therefore all the defendants are accountable.\nThe second issue presented for review is whether defendant Clyde Gunn was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated battery. Defendant Gunn bases his claim on three points. The first point is, the testimony of Officer Hatcher to the effect that defendant Gunn hit the officer in the mouth with his fist is not corroboated by any other witnesses. In People v. Harris (1971), 70 Ill.App.2d 173, the court stated:\n\u201cThe testimony of one witness alone, if it is positive and the witness credible, is sufficient to convict, even though the testimony is contradicted by the accused.\u201d\nDefendant Gunn\u2019s second contention is, he did not use a dangerous weapon, hence his conviction for aggravated battery using a dangerous weapon is groundless.\nEvidence presented at the trial showed one of the other inmates struck Officer Hatcher with a metal chain. The evidence further shows that while the other inmate was striking Officer Hatcher, defendant Gunn was standing to the rear of the officer holding him, after which he struck the officer in the mouth with his fist.\nUnder Illinois law one is accountable for the criminal activities of another when:\n\u201cEither before or during the commission of an offense, and with intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid, such other person in the planning or commission of the offense.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat., 1967, ch. 38, par. 5 \u2014 2(c).\nAlthough the defendant did not strike the blow in the instant case, by reason of the aforementioned statute he is accountable for the actions of the inmate who did strike Officer Hatcher with the chain. The defendant not only participated in the event by holding Officer Hatcher but added to the injury by his subsequent striking of the officer with his fist.\nDefendant Gunns third contention is, the State did not produce medical testimony as to the extent of Officer Hatcher\u2019s injuries. In People v. Pahl (1970), 124 Ill.App.2d 177, the court, in affirming a conviction for aggravated battery, said:\n\u201cWhile it would be helpful to have included a doctor\u2019s report or testimony in the record regarding the nature and extent of the injuries in question, such evidence is not required in all cases.\u201d\nIn view of the decision in People v. Pahl, supra, we find defendant Gunn\u2019s contention regarding medical testimony to be without merit. Moreover, we find defendant Gunn\u2019s entire claim that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated battery as charged to be without merit. All the defendants were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and we find no error in the record.\nFor the reasons stated herein, the judgments of the Circuit Court of Cook County are affirmed.\nJudgments affirmed.\nBURMAN and ADESKO, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Saul H. Brauner, Ronald P. Katz, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellants.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and S. Paul Naselli, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Holmes et al., Defendants-Appellants.\n(No. 55755;\nFirst District\nMay 3, 1972.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Saul H. Brauner, Ronald P. Katz, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellants.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and S. Paul Naselli, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0708-01",
  "first_page_order": 730,
  "last_page_order": 735
}