{ "id": 5534932, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GAIL MAREK et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Marek", "decision_date": "1980-12-31", "docket_number": "Nos. 79-358, 79-367 cons.", "first_page": "746", "last_page": "764", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "92 Ill. App. 3d 746" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "398 N.E.2d 1250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 Ill. App. 3d 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5607934 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/79/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 N.E.2d 103", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ill. App. 2d 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1584483 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/119/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 N.E.2d 658", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5639447 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/50/0678-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 N.E.2d 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ill. App. 3d 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2804677 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/38/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "394 N.E.2d 541", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 Ill. App. 3d 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3275258 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/75/0626-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 N.E.2d 286", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 Ill. App. 3d 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3409966 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/55/0021-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 N.E.2d 72", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 821", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2964516 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/34/0821-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 N.E.2d 442", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 Ill. 2d 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2888850 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/44/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 N.E.2d 870", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5809407 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/68/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 N.E.2d 383", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. 2d 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5416090 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/60/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "306 N.E.2d 27", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5404417 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "304 U.S. 458", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 10805 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/304/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 N.E.2d 68", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ill. 2d 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2911720 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/50/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 N.E.2d 78", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "71 Ill. 2d 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5448512 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/71/0254-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1274, "char_count": 49723, "ocr_confidence": 0.913, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0831744570356105e-07, "percentile": 0.5630081136004454 }, "sha256": "acadcd034e0a1d044a59b154f530d0f5aa9f0a521b8ebdec6a64047f268a4d36", "simhash": "1:b7c9968c683a8776", "word_count": 8382 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:53.928123+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. GAIL MAREK et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE JIGANTI\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn August 16, 1975, four persons died as a result of a fire which occurred at 2802 South Austin Avenue in Cicero. Lillian Weisner, the owner of the building, and Gail Marek, Weisner\u2019s daughter, were charged in the circuit court of Cook County by a 13-count indictment with arson and with the murders of Jannett Jundt and Jundt\u2019s three children, Joseph, Charles, and Elisa Maldonado. Directed verdicts were granted in favor of the defendants on the counts which charged knowing and intentional murder. The remaining nine counts went to the jury. The defendants were found guilty of murder and arson. They were sentenced to 25 years on each murder charge and 5 years on the arson charges, the sentences to run concurrently. Marek and Weisner appealed. Their appeals were consolidated and they filed joint briefs. Weisner\u2019s appeal was dismissed on March 13, 1980, following her death. On appeal, Marek (the defendant) argues (1) the trial court committed reversible error in denying her motions to suppress oral and written statements; (2) the trial court should have declared a mistrial or should have stricken testimony recounting her oral statements because the substance of these statements was not disclosed pursuant to discovery; (3) the trial court should have granted her motion for acquittal because the State failed to prove the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt; (4) the trial court should have granted her motion for a mistrial because the State\u2019s Attorney told the jury that she had been on probation; (5) the trial court improperly redacted her confession; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence after the close of all the evidence where the defendants were not allowed to introduce evidence in rebuttal.\nWe first relate the facts concerning the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant\u2019s motions to suppress. She was interviewed in the early morning hours of August 17,1975. She returned to the station at 7 o\u2019clock that evening. She gave two written statements either that evening or early the following morning.\nAccording to the initial paragraphs of the first written statement, it was taken at approximately 11:45 p.m. on August 17, 1975, in the detective\u2019s room of the Cicero Police Department. Assistant State\u2019s Attorney Lawrence O\u2019Gara, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney Ronald P. Stronjy, Cicero Police Department Detective Jack Oden, and Cicero Fire Department Inspector Harold R. Adams were present. The questioning was conducted by O\u2019Gara. Edward Stabrawa was the court reporter.\nO\u2019Gara read the defendant each of the Miranda warnings. After each warning he asked her whether she understood, and in each instance she answered that she did. O\u2019Gara then asked the defendant whether she wanted to talk to him without having a lawyer present. She answered that she did. He asked her whether she understood that she could stop talking to him at any time and that she could demand a lawyer at any time. She answered yes. O\u2019Gara asked the defendant whether she wished to make a statement and the defendant began her statement.\nThe defendant stated that she went to Weisner\u2019s home at 2802 South Austin, at approximately 5 p.m. on August 16, 1975. She brought her youngest child in the house for a nap. She, her two older children, and Weisner went outside. After a while Jannett Jundt and her three children, who lived in the upstairs apartment, arrived home from the laundromat. The defendant had known Jundt for approximately two years.\nAt approximately 11:30 that evening the defendant, her husband, her children and Weisner were in the first floor apartment of Weisner\u2019s house. Jundt, her three children and her husband, Ernest, were in the upstairs apartment.\nWeisner and the defendant had a conversation concerning a fire. According to the defendant, Weisner wanted to set fire to the house at 2802 South Austin in order to collect on the insurance. Weisner said that she had hired a person for $25,000 to set fire to the house but that she was unable to obtain the money. Weisner told Marek that she had asked \u201cMike the Mouse\u201d if he would set the fire. He agreed to do so if Weisner would pay him $400 before the fire was set and $400 afterwards. Weisner offered the defendant\u2019s husband $500 to set the fire. He refused. Weisner then said, \u201cWe got to do it.\u201d The defendant asked, \u201cWhat about them upstairs?\u201d Weisner answered, \u201cWe\u2019ll just have to yell.\u201d\nWeisner went into the back bedroom with the defendant, the defendant\u2019s husband, and the defendant\u2019s youngest child. The defendant went to the bedroom closet where clothes were being stored. She had a matchbook from Walgreens in her hand. She lit a match and dropped it on a bedspread which was in the closet. Then Weisner lit a book of matches and put it in the closet. The defendant\u2019s husband yelled, \u201cDon\u2019t, don\u2019t.\u201d The fire started blazing. All the clothes in the closet caught fire.\nThe defendant grabbed her children: She was standing in the hallway yelling for Jannett Jundt. Weisner called for Jannett and Ernie Jundt shouting, \u201cThe house is on fire.\u201d The defendant heard Ernie Jundt say \u201cYeah.\u201d The defendant, her husband, her children, and Weisner ran out the front door. The defendant related that she did not think that the whole house would catch fire. She just wanted one room to be burned.\nThe defendant signed and initialed each of the 15 pages of the first written statement. O\u2019Gara and Oden signed as witnesses.\nThe initial paragraphs of the second statement stated that it was given at 4 a.m. on Monday, August 18, 1975, at the Cicero Police Department. Present were O\u2019Gara, Oden, and the defendant. Stabrawa was the court reporter. O\u2019Gara readvised the defendant of her constitutional rights. She was asked whether she understood each of them and answered that she did.\nThe defendant was asked whether, after signing and initialing the first statement, she had told O\u2019Gara that something contained in the first statement was not true and correct. The defendant answered that, contrary to what she had told O\u2019Gara during the first statement, her husband was not present at Weisner\u2019s house at the time of the fire. She stated that everything else in the first statement was true. The second statement was signed and dated by the defendant. O\u2019Gara and Oden witnessed the signature.\nAt the hearing on the motion to suppress, August F. Mazzona testified that at the time of the fire he was chief arson investigator for the State of Illinois Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Fire Prevention. On August 17, 1975, at approximately 4 a.m. Mazzona interviewed the defendant and her mother at the Cicero police station. Cicero Police Inspector Adams and Cicero Police Officer Biziarek were present during ' this interview.\nMazzona conducted a second interview with the women at approximately 7 or 7:30 that evening. This interview took place in the detective room of the Cicero Police Department. Present were Mazzona, the defendant, and Cicero Police Officer Wilson. Mazzona read the Miranda warnings to the defendant from a form. After each item he asked her whether she understood. He handed the form to the defendant. She looked at it for a few minutes and then signed it. Mazzona and Wilson signed as witnesses to the defendant\u2019s signature. Mazzona questioned the defendant for an hour and a half to two hours. He then left the room for approximately 5 to 10 minutes. At that time Oden and Wilson and one other detective were present. Fire Inspector Adams may also have been present.\nThe defendant appeared highly nervous, but answered questions. At one point she said she was sick and indicated that she might vomit. She did not vomit but did spit into a wastepaper basket.\nOn cross-examination, Mazzona testified that the detective room in which the interview was conducted was approximately 14 feet by approximately 12 or 13 feet. He stated that there were no Miranda warnings given during the morning interview because the defendant was not a suspect at this time.\nThe morning interview lasted from 4 until 4:30 or 5. The evening interview began at approximately 7:30 or 8, and continued for an hour and a half or two hours. Mazzona, Wilson and the defendant were the only persons in the room. During that period no one else entered the room, with the possible exception of someone who may have brought coffee or water to the door for the defendant. During this time the defendant sobbed occasionally. Although she complained on one occasion that she was nauseous, she did not ask to go to the washroom. At no time during this two-hour period did the defendant complain that she was tired. Rather, she told Mazzona that during the time between the morning and evening interviews she had slept at her home. Mazzona did not remember the defendant asking to see either her mother or her husband.\nWhen Mazzona left the room after an hour and a half to two hours, Oden entered the room. Adams may have entered the room with Oden. Mazzona was gone for about 10 minutes and then was called back into the room. He stayed in the room for approximately 10 minutes. He then left the room again for 5 or 10 minutes. It was then approximately 10:30 or 11 p.m. The Assistant State\u2019s Attorney arrived shortly thereafter. The Assistant State\u2019s Attorney waited for a court reporter.\nIn response to a question asked by defense counsel, Mazzona admitted that he had included the following statement in a report he prepared on August 19,1975:\n\u201cApproximately 1:00 A.M., Sunday, August 17, State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s Office was called and two Assistant State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s arrived at the Cicero Police Station where they obtained a statement from Gail Marek, Lillian Weisner, Carl Marek and Jerry Weisner.\u201d\nSomeone at the police station told Mazzona that Weisner had asked for insulin, which was given to her. In response to a telephone call made by the police department, someone, whom the witness believed to be Weisner\u2019s husband, came to the station \u201cwith her needs.\u201d\nCicero Police Department Detective Jackie Oden testified that at approximately 9:30 p.m. on August 17, 1975, he interviewed the defendant. Cicero Fire Department Inspector Adams was also present. Prior to the interview Oden read the Miranda rights to the defendant. After reading each right he asked her whether she understood. Each time she answered that she did. The defendant then made a statement concerning the fire. Oden notified State Investigator Mazzona of the statement and asked him to come into the room. Mazzona asked her some questions and left the room again. Oden continued to interview the defendant. Oden then called his partner, Detective Wilson and Mazzona into the room. The defendant then gave further statements. Oden then called the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office. Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys Ronald Stronjy and Lawrence O\u2019Gara arrived at the Cicero Police Station at approximately 11 p.m. The court reporter arrived sometime before 12 a.m. While they were waiting for the court reporter, O\u2019Gara introduced himself, read the defendant her Miranda rights, and asked her to repeat the statement that she had given previously. She did so. Present were O\u2019Gara, Stronjy, Adams, Oden and possibly Wilson. O\u2019Gara then took a statement from the defendant in the presence of a court reporter. The same men were present during this interview. During the interview Cicero Police Officers Biziarek and DeFalco entered the room.\n\u201cQuite a few hours later, maybe two,\u201d the statement had been typed up by the court reporter, the defendant had read and signed each page, and O\u2019Gara asked the defendant, as she was reading the pages, if everything in the statement was true and correct. The defendant answered no, that there was something she would like to change. She made an additional statement.\nDuring the second written statement, O\u2019Gara, Oden, the defendant, and the court reporter were present. Oden could not remember if anyone else was present. The defendant appeared nervous and apprehensive. Her answers were responsive to the questions. Neither he nor anyone in his presence mentally or physically coerced either the defendant or Weisner.\nOn cross-examination Oden testified that it had taken the defendant approximately one-half hour to read the first written statement once it had been transcribed. At no time did he hear her ask for any coffee. Oden stated that the defendant asked to talk to her mother and to her husband, which was allowed. The defendant did not ask for a lawyer. She did not say that she was nauseous or ill. Oden did not see anyone give her a wastepaper basket to spit into. She did not ask for a drink of water at any time. She did not ask to go to the bathroom until after she made the statements. According to Oden the defendant was sobbing at different times during the interview. The defendant did not make any reference about her children to Oden.\nCicero Police Detective James DeFalco testified that at approximately midnight on April 17, 1975, he entered the detective room of the Cicero police station in order to obtain some of his equipment. The defendant was being questioned. He did not recall anything that was said to the defendant, since he was not paying attention and believed that they had stopped talking when he walked in.\nOn cross-examination, he testified that the only persons he can specifically remember being in the detective room were Oden, Mazzona, and the defendant. DeFalco\u2019s shift began at approximately 11 o\u2019clock that night, but he did not walk into the detective room immediately as he did not want to interrupt the interview.\nInvestigator Adams testified that he had been employed for more than 17 years by the Cicero Fire Department, Illinois Fire Prevention Bureau. He interviewed Weisner and the defendant at the Cicero police station at approximately 4 a.m. on April 16, 1975. Also present during the interview were Mazzona and Cicero Police Officer Biziarek. He did not consider either Weisner or the defendant to be suspects at that time. Weisner and the defendant each gave a statement with respect to the origin of the fire. They stated that they were tired and they asked if they could leave. They were allowed to go home, but were told that they might possibly be called for further questioning.\nLater that day Adams telephoned both women and asked them if they would return to clarify a few points in their statements. The defendants returned to the station at approximately 7 p.m. Adams interviewed the defendant\u2019s husband for approximately one hour. He then talked with the defendant. Also present during this interview were Oden and Adams. The interview lasted about 10 minutes. The defendant gave information about the fire. Adams then called Detective Wilson and Investigator Mazzona, who were in the interview room for approximately 10 or 15 minutes. Some time thereafter there was a call made to the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office. At approximately 11 p.m. two Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys arrived at the station, one of whom was O\u2019Gara. Adams, Oden, and Wilson were present as the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney took a statement from the defendant in the presence of a court reporter.\nLater the defendant gave another statement. Adams could not remember what time that statement was taken. Throughout the questioning, the defendant appeared nervous, Weisner appeared calm and somewhat on the aggressive side.\nOn cross-examination Adams stated that during the morning interview the defendant did not cry. After further questioning, he stated that she did. While she was sobbing, she stated, \u201cYou won\u2019t take my son away from me, will you?\u201d Adams had not asked her any questions about her son prior to this statement.\nAdams stated that during the evening interview he did not remember discussing the defendant\u2019s son with her. He did not remember hearing anyone telling the defendant that if she did not confess that the police would take her children away from her and that she would never see her family again. During the evening interview, the defendant may have been crying.\nOn further cross-examination Adams stated, in reference to the evening interview, that he first talked to the defendant at about 10 p.m., approximately three hours after she arrived at the station. During that interview Mazzona and Wilson were present. The witness did not remember whether the defendant had asked or been allowed to use the bathroom. He did not remember the defendant telling him that she was nervous and wanted to vomit. When asked whether the defendant\u2019s hair was well kept or disheveled at the time of the evening interview, the witness answered that it was about the same way as it was on the day of his testimony. He described her hair on the day of his testimony as not being \u201ccombed and brushed like she were going out somewhere special.\u201d Rather, it was \u201cin between.\u201d On direct examination and during cross-examination, Adams testified that he did not have his watch with him on August 16, 1975. He was therefore unsure of the time periods involved.\nAssistant State\u2019s Attorney Lawrence O\u2019Gara testified that he arrived at the Cicero police station at approximately 10:30 or 11 p.m. on August 17,1975. At approximately 10:45 he talked to the defendant. Present were Assistant State\u2019s Attorney Ronald Stronjy, Oden, and several law-enforcement officers. To the best of his recollection, Mazzona and Adams were also present. Prior to commencing the interview O\u2019Gara advised the defendant of her rights. He recited each of the Miranda rights to her and she stated that she understood each right. O\u2019Gara questioned the defendant as to her treatment by the law-enforcement personnel who were present at the Cicero Police Department prior to his arrival. She did not complain of any maltreatment. The defendant then gave a statement. He talked with the defendant again at 10:55 p.m. Law-enforcement personnel were present.\nHe talked to the defendant again at approximately 11:45 p.m., this time in the presence of court reporter Edward Stabrawa. Also present were Stronjy, Oden and Adams. During the course of the interview two Cicero police officers entered the room. The defendant was advised of her rights prior to making any statements. This interview lasted 20 to 30 minutes.\nThe statement was typed by the court reporter. O\u2019Gara gave it to the defendant and asked her to read it to assure herself that it accurately reflected what she had told O\u2019Gara during the interview. She did. O\u2019Gara asked her whether it was a true transcript of the conversation. He asked her to initial it and sign it.\nAt approximately 4 a.m. the defendant gave another statement in the presence of the court reporter. Oden was present. Prior to giving that statement the defendant was advised of her Miranda rights by O\u2019Gara.\nEach time O\u2019Gara gave the defendant her rights he read them to her one at a time. After each right was read the defendant stated that she understood it.\nOn cross-examination O\u2019Gara stated he could not remember exactly how long it took the defendant to read the transcription of her first written statement. He was certain that it did not take more than one hour. He was present while she read the statement. O\u2019Gara read the typed statement to the defendant before he gave it to her for her own reading. The defendant signed the first statement at approximately 3 a.m.\nO\u2019Gara believed that the defendant spoke to Weisner prior to signing the statement. After signing the first written statement, the defendant asked to see O\u2019Gara. She told O\u2019Gara she wanted to change something in the first statement. At this time she was seated in the general reception area of the Cicero police station. She let O\u2019Gara know that she wanted to change her statement by simply calling to him.\nO\u2019Gara did not remember seeing the defendant cry. He did not remember the defendant asking to go to the bathroom. She did not tell him that she was nauseous, that she was sick or that she wanted to vomit. O\u2019Gara did remember her describing a feeling that she would like to throw up, that her insides were retching. O\u2019Gara did not see her spit into a basket. The defendant did not ask to see either her mother, a lawyer, or her husband. O\u2019Gara did see her with her husband \u201cat sometimes.\u201d She did not ask to use a telephone.\nOn redirect examination, O\u2019Gara stated that at no time during the course of the interview did the defendant appear to have trouble understanding him. He did not have trouble understanding the defendant except for a few times when she was crying. He remembered seeing some bruises on the defendant\u2019s legs.\nAssistant State\u2019s Attorney Ronald Stronjy testified that he was present during the interviews of the defendant and Weisner at the Cicero Police Department on August 17, 1975. Neither he npr anyone in his presence in any way abused either the defendant or Weisner. Neither the defendant nor Weisner complained to him or to anyone in his presence of the treatment afforded to them. Neither the defendant nor Weisner appeared hysterical, disoriented or out of touch with reality.\nOn cross-examination Stronjy testified that he arrived at the Cicero Police Department at approximately 10 p.m. He saw the defendant a few minutes after arriving at the station. She was in the juvenile cell lockup, apparently asleep. The juvenile cell lockup is a small room. It did not have a cell door, but rather had a regular door with a small window in it. There was a bunk bed in the room.\nO\u2019Gara arrived at the police station approximately 30 minutes after Stronjy did. Stronjy did not talk to the defendant before O\u2019Gara arrived.\nWithin five or ten minutes after O\u2019Gara arrived, O\u2019Gara began to talk with the defendant in the detective room of the Cicero police station. O\u2019Gara, Stronjy and the defendant were present. O\u2019Gara asked the defendant whether she had been mistreated. She answered that she had not been. She was not crying. Stronjy noticed some marks on her legs, but there was nothing unusual about them. There \u201cmost definitely\u201d was not an odor of vomit in the room.\nAfter a very short time, Oden, Adams and possibly Mazzona entered the room. O\u2019Gara explained \u201ccertain things\u201d to the defendant for approximately 5 to 10 minutes. She then started talking with O\u2019Gara. She talked for approximately 20 or 30 minutes. The witness saw the defendant crying. After the interview everyone left the detective room and the defendant was taken back to the juvenile lockup. Stronjy waited for the court reporter to arrive.\nThe court reporter arrived at approximately 11:45 p.m. Another interview was conducted in the detective\u2019s room, this time in the presence of the court reporter. Also present were O\u2019Gara, Stronjy, Oden and Adams. O\u2019Gara asked the questions. The only person who questioned the defendant was O\u2019Gara. This interview lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Stronjy could not recall whether the defendant cried. At the conclusion of the interview everyone left the room. Stronjy believed that the defendant was taken back to the juvenile cell lockup.\nThe court reporter began typing the statement. Stronjy went into the detective\u2019s room with O\u2019Gara, Oden, Adams, Biziarek, DeFalco, Wilson and Weisner. There was a conversation with Weisner. After about 10 or 15 minutes the defendant entered the room. The conversation with Weisner continued. The defendant was not crying as she walked into the room. She appeared normal. She did cry during the course of the conversation.\nStronjy saw the defendant sign the first written statement and saw her sign the second written statement. The first one was signed \u201cpossibly shortly before 4 o\u2019clock a.m.\u201d Stronjy was not present for the second recorded interview. He left the station with O\u2019Gara at 5:15 or 5:30 a.m.\nCicero Police Officer Robert Biziarek testified that he was present at the morning and evening interviews. Neither he nor anyone in his presence abused the defendant or Weisner in any manner. Neither woman complained to him or anyone in his presence about the treatment afforded them. Neither appeared hysterical or out of touch with reality at any time. Neither he nor anyone in his presence shook or manhandled either woman.\nOn cross-examination Biziarek testified that he saw the defendant in the detective room at 5 or 10 minutes before midnight on August 17. O\u2019Gara, Stronjy, Oden and a male court reporter were present. Biziarek remained in the room no more than 30 minutes. O\u2019Gara was asking questions and the defendant was answering. She was not crying. Biziarek could not remember whether Mazzona was also in the room. After about a half hour the court reporter left to type up the statement. The defendant was taken out of the room and Weisner was brought in. Biziarek saw the defendant speak to Weisner either in the detective room or just outside the door. The door was open.\nCicero Police Officer Robert Wilson testified that he was at the Cicero police station on the evening of August 17, 1975. Neither he nor anyone in his presence abused the defendant or Weisner in any way. Neither woman complained to him or to anyone in his presence about the treatment afforded to them. Neither defendant appeared hysterical or out of touch with reality.\nOn cross-examination Wilson testified that he arrived at the station at approximately 2:30 p.m. on August 17. The defendant and Weisner arrived at 6 or 7 p.m. He was present at an interview with the defendant. The only other person present was Mazzona. The interview lasted 45 minutes to an hour. At the conclusion of the interview the defendant was left alone in the detective\u2019s office. Wilson did not talk to the defendant again that evening nor did anyone else talk to her in his presence.\nDuring the interview, the defendant stated that she was sick and wanted to throw up. She asked permission to go to the washroom. She did not throw up, but spit into a wastebasket. She was crying during the interview.\nEdward Stabrawa testified that he is a licensed and certified shorthand reporter. He has been employed by the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s Office of Cook County for approximately 20 years. On August 17, 1975, he was called to the Cicero Police Department. He transcribed statements made by the defendant.\nStabrawa was shown a Polaroid photograph of the defendant. He said he took the picture at the conclusion of the first recorded interview. At the time he asked the defendant to write her name and address and the date on the back of the photograph. She did so. O\u2019Gara also signed. Stabrawa then wrote on the back of the photograph \u201cpicture taken on Monday, August 18, 1975 at 12:10 a.m. by\u201d and signed his name.\nOn cross-examination Stabrawa testified that he arrived at the station at about 11:40 p.m. About five minutes later he entered a small office. The interview began. The defendant, O\u2019Gara, Stronjy, Oden and Adams were present. Anything that O\u2019Gara asked in Stabrawa\u2019s presence was reflected in the typed statement. Stabrawa did not recall seeing the defendant crying. The interview took approximately 30 minutes. After taking the defendant\u2019s picture Stabrawa left the room and proceeded to type the shorthand conversation from his notes. He typed each page in approximately five or six minutes.\nStabrawa gave the statement to the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney at approximately 3:20 or 3:30 a.m. He did not see the defendant sign the statement.\nAt approximately 4 o\u2019clock in the morning O\u2019Gara asked Stabrawa to record a second statement. The statement took approximately five minutes.\nMazzona, Oden, DeFalco, Adams, O\u2019Gara, Stronjy, Biziarek, Wilson and Stabrawa each testified that neither he nor anyone in his presence threatened, struck or beat the defendant or made any promises to the defendant. Each stated that neither he nor anyone in his presence twisted the defendant\u2019s arm or pulled her hair.\nMarek testified that she was interviewed at the Cicero police station for approximately one hour sometime after 4:30 a.m. on August 17,1975. At approximately 7 o\u2019clock that evening the defendant and Weisner returned to the Cicero police station because a Cicero police officer had called and told Weisner that they needed, \u201cto clean up a few things.\u201d\nThe defendant, her husband and Weisner waited for a while at the police station. Then Oden brought the defendant into a little office. There were four police officers in the room. The defendant could not remember their names. She remained in the little room for \u201ca lot of hours.\u201d Oden asked all the questions.\nThe defendant asked Oden for a glass of water and to go to the bathroom. He refused. Later she told Oden that she had to throw up. Oden told her that if she had to throw up that she should do so in the wastebasket. The defendant threw up in the wastebasket. Oden pulled her hair, twisted her arm and shook her. When he shook her, her legs struck \u201cobjects.\u201d The defendant asked to see her mother and her husband \u201ca lot of times.\u201d She was never allowed to do so. Oden told the defendant that if she didn\u2019t tell him the truth he was going to take her children away from her.\nOden told the defendant that he had seen her husband running from the scene of the fire. She answered that her husband was not at Weisner\u2019s house at anytime on the date of the fire. Oden told the defendant that Weisner had given a statement to the effect that the defendant and her husband had set the fire. The defendant felt tired, nauseated, and hungry.\nEventually she gave a statement. She did not know the name of the man to whom she gave the statement. Four men including Oden and a court reporter were present. The statement was not true.\nAfter the defendant gave the first statement, Oden came back into the room and told her that she was lying about her husband being there. Two other officers were present at that time. The defendant reminded Oden that she had told him that her husband was not there and that he would not believe her.\nThe defendant testified that Oden gave her the first statement and told her to sign it. She could not read it but she signed it. She did not read the second statement but signed it because she was told to do so.\nDefense counsel showed the defendant a paper on which the Miranda warnings were printed. It was dated August 17,1980, and signed by the defendant. Counsel asked the defendant to read it out loud. She read portions but there were many words which she stated she did not know. She remembered signing the document. Defense counsel showed the defendant the two written statements. She identified her initials and signatures on the documents. Counsel asked the defendant to read parts of the statement out loud. As the defendant read, she stated she did not know many of the words.\nIn response to questions by her counsel, the defendant stated that she had heard the terms \u201cState\u2019s Attorney\u201d and \u201cprosecutor\u201d but did not know what they meant.\nOn cross-examination the defendant testified that the morning interview was conducted by a \u201cfire marshall.\u201d She was at the station approximately 30 minutes. No one threatened, beat, struck or scared her in any way. When she left the station she went home.\nShe knew that the person who conducted the evening interviews was Oden because she had \u201cseen him around a lot.\u201d He was married to one of her girl friends.\nThe defendant stated that she was never advised of any of the Miranda rights. She did not know what it meant to \u201chave the right to remain silent\u201d or what it meant when someone told her she could stop talking at anytime she wanted to.\nThe defendant knew how to write her name but could write nothing else. She did not know her address.\nOden pulled her hair, shook her once, and twisted her arm once. He called her dirty names and told her that if she did not tell him the truth he was going to take her children away from her. While Oden was shaking her she hit her legs against the desk. Both of her knees and the side of her right leg hit the desk. Her leg hit the desk a couple of times. Thereafter the fire marshal entered the room. He did not hit her, twist her arm, pull her hair, or threaten to take her children away.\nThe Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys did not come inside the room. They were at the back door. The Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys did not ask the defendant whether anyone had hurt her. She did not tell either of them what Oden had done to her because she was scared.\nOden had asked the defendant all of the questions when the defendant gave the first and second written statements. The defendant was certain that Oden had asked the questions and not the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney.\nAfter giving the first written statement, Oden walked with the defendant to the back of the room and told the Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys that she had to give a different statement, that her first statement was a lie. She reminded Oden that she had told him the truth prior to giving the first written statement. The Assistant State\u2019s Attorney was there and heard her say this. The defendant did not read either statement before signing it. Neither statement was read to her before she signed it.\nThe defendant stated that the picture taken of her at the police station on August 18, 1975, did not reflect the way she looked after she gave the statements. Rather, it showed how she looked when she first arrived at the police station.\nAt one point during cross-examination the court indicated that the defendant was crying. He asked her whether she would like to rest for a while. She answered, \u201cNo, I\u2019ll finish.\u201d Defense counsel asked for a recess. The court adjourned for a five-minute recess so that the witness could compose herself.\nOn redirect examination, the defendant stated that she could write her name and address but nothing else.\nLillian Weisner testified at the suppression hearing. This testimony will be related only as it affects the issue of whether the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress was improperly denied. Weisner stated that while she was at the station on the night of August 17, 1975, she saw the defendant being taken out of a room by police officers. The defendant\u2019s hair was \u201call over her head.\u201d She was crying and hysterical.\nWeisner was then taken into the room from which the defendant was removed. Oden, Adams, Mazzona and two other officers were present. About an hour later the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney came in. She told Oden she was not guilty and asked to call her attorney. Weisner stated that Oden \u201ckept after her,\u201d and refused her requests to use the washroom, for water, for insulin and for food. O\u2019Gara then came in. He also ignored her request to go to the bathroom. About an hour and 15 minutes after Weisner was brought into the room, the defendant came in. She looked worse than before. She was sobbing and said to Weisner, \u201cMother, you did the arson, or we did.\u201d Weisner testified that at this point she, Weisner, was almost unconscious and would have admitted to anything. However, she never made a statement.\nWeisner\u2019s physician stated that Weisner suffered from moderate diabetes. He knew that after the fire she had been treated for smoke inhalation and was prescribed valium. According to the physician, if Weisner had lapsed into a diabetic coma, she would not have regained consciousness without treatment.\nDonald Lambert, director of student services for Cicero elementary public schools, also testified. According to Lambert, the defendant\u2019s 1959 scholastic report showed her chronological age as 7 and mental ability in the lower limits of average, upper limits of dull normal. She had an IQ of 90. The last entry on the report of June 1965 showed a reading level of not beyond second grade. Tests administered when she was 12 indicated a lower result than the 1959 test. Lambert believed that the defendant\u2019s 1975 ability would be close to the 1959 score.\nLambert stated that the defendant was diagnosed as \u201cfunctionally retarded.\u201d A person who is functionally retarded functions at below the level at which persons with an IQ of 80 would function. The functionally retarded have a variety of symptoms that are characteristic of mental retardation. However, persons who are functionally retarded have the ability to progress but do not do so because of emotional or behavioral reasons. According to Lambert, the defendant was placed in a home tutorial program during the 1966-67 and 1967-68 school years. The home tutorial service was used only for students who had serious behavioral or social acting-out problems. Prior to beginning the tutorial program, the d\u00e9fendant had been placed in a special class for children with behavioral problems.\nSusan Dickensheets, an instructor at the Pace Institute at Cook County jail, testified that the defendant came to the institute while incarcerated. Dickensheets administered the Stamford achievement test, which measures reading, language and math skills. Dickensheets was not able to administer the first two portions of the test because the defendant was unable to read even the first sentence of those portions of the test. Dickensheets did not attempt to administer the science and spelling portions of the exam. Dickensheets had no way of knowing whether a person is refusing to read or is unable to read. Marek scored second-grade, third-month level in the word study skill section of the test. She scored third-grade level on the arithmetic portion. During the time that Dickensheets tutored Marek her reading improved. According to Dickensheets, Marek\u2019s reading problem might be visual.\nThe defendant\u2019s first contention is that the trial court committed reversible error in denying her motions to suppress. She does not deny that she was advised of her Miranda rights prior to making any statement. Rather, she argues that her waiver of the rights to remain silent and to be represented by counsel was not voluntary because she was threatened, beaten, denied food, denied sleep and refused the use of washroom facilities. She also contends that her waiver was not knowing or intelligent, because she has a low IQ, is functionally retarded, and is unable to read.\nWe first address the defendant\u2019s contention that she was subjected to physical and mental coercion. She testified that Oden pulled her hair, twisted her arm and shook her once so hard that her legs struck the desk. When her legs struck the desk she received bruises on her calf and knees. Oden called her dirty names. She told Oden that she had to throw up and asked to go the washroom. She was made to throw up into the wastebasket and was refused permission to go to the washroom. Oden told her that if she did not tell him the truth he was going to take her children away from her. The defendant alleges that she was refused permission to see her mother and her husband. She was not allowed to make a telephone call.\nFour Cicero police officers, the chief arson inspector for the State of Illinois, a Cicero fire inspector, two Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys and a court reporter denied that they or anyone in their presence used force or made threats of force. The witnesses denied that the defendant was not permitted to go to the washroom. They denied that she threw up in a wastebasket. According to the State\u2019s witnesses, the defendant was allowed to see both her husband and her mother. No one threatened the defendant that her children would be taken away from her.\nIt is for the trial court to resolve conflicts in the evidence. In that the trial judge has observed the demeanor of the witnesses, has heard their testimony, and has evaluated other evidence, he is best equipped to determine the voluntariness of a confession. (People v. Medina (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 254, 375 N.E.2d 78.) In making the determination of voluntariness, the court is not required to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, the trial court\u2019s findings will not be disturbed unless it can be said that they are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Medina; People v. Higgins (1972), 50 Ill. 2d 221, 278 N.E.2d 68.) We believe that the evidence presented below supports the conclusion that the defendant\u2019s waiver was voluntary rather than a result of physical and mental coercion.\nWe next consider the defendant\u2019s contention that she did not knowingly and intelligently waive her Miranda rights because she has a low IQ and is unable to read.\nThe determination of whether there has been intelligent waiver of rights depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case (Johnson v. Zerbst (1938), 304 U.S. 458, 82 L. Ed. 1461, 58 S. Ct. 1019; People v. Turner (1973), 56 Ill. 2d 201, 306 N.E.2d 27) and is a question for the trial court (People v. Simmons (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 173, 326 N.E.2d 383). The finding of the trial court is not to be disturbed unless against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Wipfler (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 158, 368 N.E.2d 870.\nHere, defense witnesses testified that in 1959 the defendant\u2019s IQ was 90. Tests administered five years later indicated a lower result. A defense witness testified that the defendant\u2019s 1975 ability would be close to the 1959 score. The 1959 score was described as being in the low-average range. The defendant had been diagnosed at one time as being \u201cfunctionally retarded.\u201d That is, she had a variety of symptoms that are characteristic of mental retardation, but her failure to progress was a result of emotional or behavioral reasons. We believe that on the basis of the defense witness\u2019 testimony that the defendant was in the \u201clow average range\u201d of intelligence combined with the trial court\u2019s own observation of the defendant and her testimony support the trial court\u2019s determination that the defendant was capable of an intelligent waiver of her Miranda rights.\nWe do not believe that the defendant\u2019s alleged inability to read is relevant here. According to numerous witnesses, the Miranda rights were read to the defendant. Such a reading was made not once but many times. The two statements transcribed by the court reporter also reflect that the Miranda rights were read to the defendant and that she indicated she understood them. There is also evidence that the defendant\u2019s written statement was read to her before she signed it.\nThe defendant\u2019s next contention concerning her confession is that the substance of her statement shows it to be involuntary. In her first oral statement she indicated that her husband was at the Weisner home at the time of the fire. She said that her mother had offered him $500 to set the fire and he refused. She also said that when she struck the match her husband yelled \u201cDon\u2019t, don\u2019t.\u201d She claims that the fact that it was later established that her husband was not present at the house at the time of the fire proves that she said only what she was told to say when making the first recorded statements.\nWe do not believe that this alleged inaccuracy in the defendant\u2019s first written statement mandates the conclusion that the entire statement was involuntary. Such minor inconsistencies between the confession and other evidence go to the weight to be given the confession and not to its admissibility. (People v. Norcutt (1970), 44 Ill. 2d 256, 255 N.E.2d 442.) We do not believe the fact that the defendant initially stated that her husband was at the Weisner home supports her contention that her confession was the result of coercion by the police.\nAccordingly, we conclude the trial court acted properly in denying the defendant\u2019s motions to suppress.\nThe defendant also contends that the trial court should have declared a mistrial or should have stricken testimony recounting oral statements made by the defendant because the substance of these statements was not disclosed to the defendant pursuant to discovery. However, the record reveals that, in response to a request for disclosure of \u201cthe substance of oral statements made by the defendant,\u201d the People disclosed a list of all utterances and copies of all reports written by witnesses. Where the defendant does not claim that he is not notified of the existence of the witnesses to the oral statement there is no prejudice from any nondisclosure of the substance of the statements. (People v. McAleer (1975), 34 Ill. App. 3d 821, 341 N.E.2d 72.) The discovery rules do not require that the prosecution reduce the substance of an oral statement to memoranda form prior to presenting a witness to the statement. (People v. Abbott (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 21, 370 N.E.2d 286.) Further, in the instant case, Marek did not request that her oral statements be reduced to a writing, and the substance of her statements was testified to by O\u2019Gara during voir dire. We therefore conclude that the court acted properly concerning the testimony of the defendant\u2019s oral statements.\nThe defendant also contends that the trial court improperly redacted Marek\u2019s confession. However, the defendant\u2019s statement was redacted to protect codefendant Weisner\u2019s interest. Only Weisner objected to the redaction on the grounds now argued on appeal. The defendant objected on another basis and was given the opportunity to change the statement. She did not do so. Because the issue raised on appeal relates only to defendant Weisner and Weisner\u2019s appeal has been dismissed, we do not consider the redaction issue.\nThe defendant next contends that a new trial should be ordered because the State told the jury that the defendant Marek had been on probation. However, the first evidence as to the fact of the defendant\u2019s probation was introduced by a defense witness. Further, the prosecutorial reference was objected to, the objection was sustained, and the jury was instructed to disregard. Therefore, even if the reference were error, that error was cured. People v. Outlaw (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 626, 394 N.E.2d 541; People v. Terry (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 517, 347 N.E.2d 869.\nThe defendant next contends that the corpus delicti was not properly established. She argues that the only evidence that tended to prove the fire was caused by a criminal agency was her confession and that since there is no evidence or corroborating circumstances to establish that element a reversal is required. However, the record reflects sufficient evidence to corroborate Marek\u2019s confession and sufficient evidence independent of the confession to establish criminal agency.\nThe test of whether the corpus delicti has been established is whether the evidence as a whole proves the fact that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it. (People v. Donalson (1977), 50 Ill. App. 3d 678, 365 N.E.2d 658.) Here, Mazzona, who was at that time chief arson investigator for the State of Illinois Department of Law Enforcement, testified that he examined the premises where the fire had occurred and found only one point where the burning was at its lowest and went upward. This is the point of origin of the fire and appears as a \u201cV\u201d on the structure. The only \u201cV\u201d on the outside of the building was on the west side between the bay and a little bedroom window. He found low burning in one room only, the bedroom. The fire line was immediately above the front of the wardrobe closet between the bay window and the little bedroom window. It was Mazzona\u2019s opinion that the fire started immediately in the front wardrobe closet of the bedroom. Two feet in front of the wardrobe, Mazzona found a burnt book of matches. He found burnt clothes, ashes and portions of a burnt bedspread. It was Mazzona\u2019s opinion that the fire started at that point by someone using a book of matches. This comports with Gail Marek\u2019s statement. She stated that she dropped a lit match on a bedspread in the closet area of the bedroom. She stated that her mother then took a whole book of matches, lit it and placed it on the spread.\nIt is also noteworthy that Marek gave four inconsistent statements concerning the cause of the fire. Motive was established, independent of Marek\u2019s confession, by the testimony of Marek\u2019s father and her husband. We therefore believe the corpus delicti was established independent of any improper reliance on Marek\u2019s confession.\nThe defendant next contends that the trial court improperly admitted the charred matchbook into evidence after the close of the evidence and improperly denied her a continuance to obtain an expert witness to testify that the matches were unidentifiable. She also argues that the trial court abused its discretion because the evidence was admitted after the close of all the evidence and the defendants were not allowed to introduce evidence in rebuttal.\nThe reopening of a case for new evidence at the completion of all the evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. (People v. Wilder (1970), 119 Ill. App. 2d 422, 256 N.E.2d 103; Lee v. Chastang (1979), 79 Ill. App. 3d 622, 398 N.E.2d 1250.) In all the cases cited by the defendant the prosecution was allowed to reopen the case after the close of all the evidence. In every case no abuse of discretion was found.\nAlso, Mazzona testified at length concerning the book of matches during the State\u2019s case in chief. The defense had every opportunity to cross-examine Mazzona on this matter and to offer expert evidence in rebuttal. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJOHNSON and ROMITI, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE JIGANTI" } ], "attorneys": [ "Sam Adam and Charles Locker, both of Chicago, for appellants.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr and Myra J. Brown, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GAIL MAREK et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNos. 79-358, 79-367 cons.\nOpinion filed December 31, 1980.\nSam Adam and Charles Locker, both of Chicago, for appellants.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr and Myra J. Brown, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0746-01", "first_page_order": 768, "last_page_order": 786 }