{ "id": 3404017, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS EVANS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Evans", "decision_date": "1977-11-30", "docket_number": "No. 77-195", "first_page": "883", "last_page": "886", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 883" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "325 N.E.2d 56", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill. App. 3d 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2787703 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/26/0078-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 N.E.2d 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Ill. 2d 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5377977 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/36/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "332 N.E.2d 634", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill. App. 3d 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2620704 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/30/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "304 N.E.2d 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 Ill. 2d 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2937209 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/55/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 N.E.2d 11", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Ill. App. 3d 902", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5398788 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/10/0902-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 428, "char_count": 6823, "ocr_confidence": 0.894, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08, "percentile": 0.3331064861310447 }, "sha256": "006b505a1b4b6381c152d490c0a3344f4a9fcd5e0a014acf622be764923ba455", "simhash": "1:0bfa30ce6964e7f1", "word_count": 1147 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:34.806209+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. THOMAS EVANS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STENGEL\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Thomas Evans appeals from a murder conviction which was entered following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Will County. The sole issue on appeal is whether the guilty verdict resulted from the perjured testimony of defendant\u2019s wife, Patricia Evans, who was the State\u2019s only occurrence witness.\nIn September of 1975 defendant and Mrs. Evans were living apart after six years of marriage. About 10 p.m. on the night of September 14, defendant went to Mrs. Evans\u2019 apartment armed with a hand gun. According to Mrs. Evans, she was ironing, and a friend from work, Demtrius Bond, was sitting at the dinette table with a pencil in his hand computing some overtime records. When the doorbell rang, she went to the door, and as defendant pushed past her, she screamed \u201cDee.\u201d She testified that she saw defendant with a gun going towards Demtrius in the middle of the room, that she saw a yellow No. 2 pencil in Demtrius\u2019 left hand, that Demtrius shrugged his shoulders and said, \u201cMan,\u201d and that defendant shot Demtrius in the chest from a distance of less than arm\u2019s length. After Demtrius fell to the floor, defendant put his foot on the victim\u2019s arm and shot him a second time and then a third time. The gunshot wounds were fatal.\nA sheriff\u2019s investigator testified for the prosecution that sheets of paper containing numbers written in pencil were lying on the table and scattered on the floor. He also saw a pencil on the floor. Photographs of the scene were introduced which showed the pencil on the floor, blood spots, the papers, the ironing board, and other physical evidence.\nDefendant testified in his own behalf. He admitted shooting Bond in Mrs. Evans\u2019 apartment, but insisted that he acted in self-defense. He said that he tripped as he entered the apartment and landed on his back part way into the living room. He looked up and saw Bond rushing at him with a shiny object in his hand that looked like a knife, and heard Bond say, \u201cMan, you had it.\u201d Defendant said he then pulled his gun out and fired. The victim kept coming so defendant fired again one or two times as the victim was falling. Then defendant jumped up, threw down the gun, and ran out of the apartment.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder, and defendant filed a post-trial motion, alleging inter alia that the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct by his coercion of Mrs. Evans which resulted in a deprivation of defendant\u2019s constitutional right to a fair trial. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in connection with the post-trial motion.\nAt that hearing Mrs. Evans testified for defendant that she had voluntarily appeared before the grand jury in November of 1975 and then had notified the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office that she was going to California. She said that she gave a secretary her brother\u2019s California address and phone number where she could be reached. On May 19, 1976, she was arrested in California on an obstruction of justice charge filed by the Will County State\u2019s Attorney. After she was arrested, Ira Goldstein, the assistant State\u2019s Attorney in charge of the case, telephoned her in jail and threatened to keep her locked up for 10 years if she did not cooperate. After she returned to Illinois, her attorney negotiated a grant of immunity on the obstruction of justice charge in return for her testimony at defendant\u2019s murder trial. According to Mrs. Evans, when Goldstein interviewed her shortiy before trial, she first stated that she was unable to see Bond\u2019s hands before and during the shooting, but then, because she was afraid of Goldstein, she changed her story to say that she saw the pencil in Bond\u2019s hand. Goldstein testified that his only conversation with Mrs. Evans about her testimony took place in the presence of her two attorneys, that she was charged with obstruction of justice after he was unable to reach her at the California address in his file, and that she voluntarily stated to him that Bond had a pencil in his hand. Goldstein\u2019s testimony about his contacts with Mrs. Evans contradicted her testimony in numerous other details.\nAt the conclusion of the hearing on the post-trial motion, the trial judge stated that he believed Goldstein and did not believe Mrs. Evans or her California attorney who had corroborated some of her testimony relating to her California arrest. The court also stated that Goldstein's testimony was straightforward, forthright, candid, and consistent, and for the record, the court noted that defendant and Mrs. Evans had kissed one another affectionately in the courtroom, indicating an apparent reconciliation of their marital difficulties. The post-trial motion was denied. After the sentencing hearing defendant was given a sentence from 14 years to 14 years and one day in prison.\nOn appeal defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because the chief prosecution witness has admitted giving perjured testimony against defendant and because Assistant State\u2019s Attorney Goldstein was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. We agree that defendant would be entitled to a new trial if Mrs. Evans\u2019 post-trial testimony as to her perjury were to be believed. (See, e.g., People v. Bolton (3d Dist. 1975), 10 Ill. App. 3d 902, 295 N.E.2d 11.) However, the question presented by this appeal is quite simply one of credibility of the witnesses who testified at the hearing on the post-trial motion. In matters heard without a jury it is the function of the trial judge to resolve conflicts in testimony and to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. People v. Clay (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 501, 304 N.E.2d 280; People v. Winfield (3d Dist. 1975), 30 Ill. App. 3d 668, 332 N.E.2d 634.\nWe note that Mrs. Evans\u2019 trial testimony was consistent with her earlier testimony before the grand jury and was corroborated by the physical evidence at the scene. Illinois courts have often remarked that recanting testimony is generally unreliable, and that a new trial should be denied where the trial judge was not satisfied that such testimony was true. People v. Nash (1966), 36 Ill. 2d 275, 222 N.E.2d 473; People v. Jones (4th Dist. 1975), 26 Ill. App. 3d 78, 325 N.E.2d 56.\nWe see no reason to disturb the finding of the trial judge, and therefore the judgment of the Circuit Court of Will County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nALLOY and BARRY, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STENGEL" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael A. Unger, of Rocco & Unger, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.", "Edward Petka, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (Richard Ralough, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS EVANS, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 77-195\nOpinion filed November 30, 1977.\nMichael A. Unger, of Rocco & Unger, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.\nEdward Petka, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (Richard Ralough, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0883-01", "first_page_order": 905, "last_page_order": 908 }