{ "id": 3119368, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VAL BOCLAIRE (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Boclaire", "decision_date": "1981-03-30", "docket_number": "No. 80-25", "first_page": "536", "last_page": "540", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "95 Ill. App. 3d 536" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "372 N.E.2d 871", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. App. 3d 1018", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3416495 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/56/1018-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill. 2d 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2958767 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "282" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/59/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5404227 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "452" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2965815 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/61/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill. 2d 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2882811 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Ill. 2d 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2926810 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "275" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/53/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Ill. 2d 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5430641 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "490" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/64/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 N.E.2d 882", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "884" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5809665 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "154" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/68/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 N.E.2d 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2896464 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/45/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.E.2d 454", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "48 Ill. App. 3d 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3371319 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/48/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "244 N.E.2d 136", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2852796 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/41/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 U.S. 123", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767670 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S. Ct. 1672", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "48 L. Ed. 2d 180", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "425 U.S. 938", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6243140, 6243493, 6240838, 6239974, 6241064, 6242828, 6240269, 6242034, 6241364, 6243801, 6240538, 6241727 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/425/0938-10", "/us/425/0938-11", "/us/425/0938-04", "/us/425/0938-01", "/us/425/0938-05", "/us/425/0938-09", "/us/425/0938-02", "/us/425/0938-08", "/us/425/0938-06", "/us/425/0938-12", "/us/425/0938-03", "/us/425/0938-07" ] }, { "cite": "336 N.E.2d 753", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2965894 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/61/0383-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 S. Ct. 356", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 L. Ed. 2d 266", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "400 U.S. 958", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12107077, 12107301, 12107177, 12107147, 12107212, 12107121, 12107281, 12107061, 12107254, 12107191, 12107320, 12107097, 12107231 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/400/0958-02", "/us/400/0958-12", "/us/400/0958-06", "/us/400/0958-05", "/us/400/0958-08", "/us/400/0958-04", "/us/400/0958-11", "/us/400/0958-01", "/us/400/0958-10", "/us/400/0958-07", "/us/400/0958-13", "/us/400/0958-03", "/us/400/0958-09" ] }, { "cite": "256 N.E.2d 343", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 Ill. 2d 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2888309 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/44/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 U.S. 278", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3929326 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/297/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 U.S. 528", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1765184 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "534" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/372/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 N.E.2d 222", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Ill. 2d 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5380309 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/35/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 N.E.2d 1098", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1113" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 Ill. App. 3d 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3273925 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/75/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "409 U.S. 322", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6175483 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/409/0322-01" ] }, { "cite": "439 U.S. 128", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11329017 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/439/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 N.E.2d 337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 Ill. App. 3d 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3388810 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/52/0414-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 655, "char_count": 10490, "ocr_confidence": 0.907, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.271536327814851e-08, "percentile": 0.33078665976278926 }, "sha256": "77176ea9bf148fdfdbbefdfcbd6ed7464a89bb48935074134bb8ead1f3e2d685", "simhash": "1:b2ee65266d449f95", "word_count": 1724 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:14:33.414377+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. VAL BOCLAIRE (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Val Boclaire and three others were charged by indictment with two counts of murder, attempt armed robbery and four counts of conspiracy. After a separate jury trial, defendant was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms of 35 years for murder and 10 years for attempt armed robbery. Defendant appeals.\nOn appeal, defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence; (2) his statement should have been suppressed; (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a co-defendant\u2019s statement; (4) the failure of the State to call potential witnesses casts doubt on his guilt; and (5) his sentence is excessive.\nWe affirm.\nRoosevelt Crigler died as a result of gunshot wounds received at approximately 1:30 a.m. on March 30, 1978. The fatal shots were fired through the window in the front door of Crigler\u2019s home. Defendant, among others, was arrested at approximately 11:30 p.m.\nAt the hearing on the motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence, defendant called Officer John McHugh. McHugh testified that he received information from Daniel Hass and two others that John Burnham was involved in the murder. Hass had been across the street from Crigler\u2019s home when the shooting occurred and saw Burnham and three others run from the area after the shooting. Burnham was arrested and implicated Boclaire. Officer McHugh thereafter learned that a Cadillac bearing the license number YM 4030 was used by Crigler\u2019s assailants in an attempt to flee. A car meeting this description was stopped by McHugh and his partner, Investigator Fournier, on the evening of March 30. The four passengers were arrested. Defendant Val Boclaire was seated on the passenger side of the front seat. Hershell Johnson, the driver of the car, informed McHugh that a rifle was in the trunk. The officers opened the trunk and viewed a .22-caliber rifle. McHugh did not state whether Miranda warnings were given. The trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion to quash his arrest and suppress the rifle.\nDefendant also made a motion to suppress his oral statement given shortly after his arrest. At the hearing on the motion, the State called Investigator Joseph Bamberger to testify. Bamberger was present when defendant gave a statement at the police station to assistant State\u2019s Attorney Comroe. Comroe advised defendant of his rights and defendant stated he understood them. Defendant gave an oral statement but refused to have it reduced to writing. Bamberger further stated that Boclaire was neither physically nor mentally abused. Comroe then testified essentially to the same facts. Comroe recorded a summary of defendant\u2019s statement in a felony review file and testified to the substance of the statement at trial.\nDefendant testifying on his own behalf stated that he made no statement at the police station and was never advised of his rights. He further testified that Officer McHugh struck him while he was in the interview room. After arguments, defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the statement was denied.\nFirst, defendant argues that the rifle should have been suppressed because it was found only after a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments.\nOn a motion to suppress evidence based on the fourth amendment, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the factual and legal bases supporting the motion. (People v. Billings (1977), 52 Ill. App. 3d 414, 367 N.E.2d 337.) Among the facts which defendant must prove are his possessory interest in the area searched and the item seized. (Rakas v. Illinois (1978), 439 U.S. 128, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387, 99 S. Ct. 421.) Defendant established neither a possessory interest in the car nor the rifle. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.\nThe fifth amendment\u2019s privilege against self-incrimination is a personal privilege. The Constitution does not proscribe incriminating statements elicted from another, but only prohibits compelling an accused to bear witness against himself. (Couch v. United States (1973), 409 U.S. 322, 34 L. Ed. 2d 548, 93 S. Ct. 611.) Here, Hershell Johnson was the only person who made any statements at the time of arrest. Boclaire does not allege that any of his own remarks led to the seizure of the rifle. Therefore, his contention that the rifle was seized in violation of the fifth amendment is without merit.\nSecond, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement.\nIn People v. Lewis (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 259, 278, 393 N.E.2d 1098, 1113, the court stated:\n\u201cThe constitutional test for the admission of a confession is whether the confession was made freely, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement of any sort. (People v. Davis (1966), 35 Ill. 2d 202, 220 N.E.2d 222.) The test for voluntariness is whether the defendant\u2019s will was overborne at the time he made a statement. (Lynumn v. Illinois (1963), 372 U.S. 528, 534, 9 L. Ed. 2d 922, 83 S. Ct. 917.) A confession obtained by force or brutality is not voluntary and is inadmissible. (Brown v. Mississippi (1936), 297 U.S. 278, 80 L. Ed. 682, 56 S. Ct. 461.) The determination of voluntariness is to be made by the trial court based on the totality of the circumstances (People v. Johnson (1970), 44 Ill. 2d 463, 256 N.E.2d 343, cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 958, 27 L. Ed. 2d 266, 91 S. Ct. 356) and its finding will not be disturbed on review unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Lamb (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 383, 336 N.E.2d 753, cert. denied (1976), 425 U.S. 938, 48 L. Ed. 2d 180, 96 S. Ct. 1672.\u201d\nHere, the record contains ample evidence supporting the trial court\u2019s denial of the motion. Prior to making the statement, defendant was advised of his rights and stated that he understood each of them. Furthermore, his arrest was based on probable cause. The totality of circumstances indicates that the statement was voluntarily made and was not the result of police misconduct.\nThird, defendant contends that Investigator Fournier\u2019s trial testimony regarding Johnson\u2019s statement to Officer McHugh that the gun was in the trunk was improperly admitted. He argues that his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him was violated thereby and cites Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 U.S. 123, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476, 88 S. Ct. 1620, in support of his contention.\nIn Bruton, the court held that admission of an out-of-court statement by one co-defendant implicating a second co-defendant violates the latter\u2019s sixth amendment right to confront witnesses against him. Here, however, Johnson\u2019s statement did not implicate Boclaire and Boclaire\u2019s constitutional right was not violated.\nMoreover, the Bruton rule is not violated where a defendant claiming the benefit of the rule has made an inculpatory admission which is admitted into evidence. (People v. Rosochacki (1969), 41 Ill. 2d 483, 244 N.E.2d 136; People v. Marine (1977), 48 Ill. App. 3d 271, 362 N.E.2d 454.) In the case at bar, Comroe\u2019s summary of defendant\u2019s statement in which defendant admitted participation in the occurrence was in evidence. No violation of the Bruton rule occurred, and the trial court, therefore, did not err in admitting Fournier\u2019s testimony.\nFourth, defendant argues that the State\u2019s failure to call two of his co-indictees casts doubt on his guilt. Prior to Boclaire\u2019s trial, the State struck the indictments against John Burnham and Steve Cawley. Neither was called as a witness by the State. However, these witnesses were known and available to the defendant and he cannot claim prejudice by the failure of the State to call them. People v. Nowak (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 158, 258 N.E.2d 313.\nFifth, defendant contends that his sentence is excessive. As facts supporting his contention he cites his age (17 at the time of the murder and 18 at the time of trial) and Johnson\u2019s lesser concurrent sentences of 12 years for attempt armed robbery and armed violence.\nIn People v. Perruquet (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 149, 154, 368 N.E.2d 882, 884, the court noted:\n\u201c[T]he trial judge is normally in a better position to determine the punishment to be imposed than the courts of review. (People v. Butler (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 485, 490; People v. Burbank (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 261, 275; People v. Taylor (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 417, 424.) A reasoned judgment as to the proper sentence to be imposed must be based upon the particular circumstances of each individual case. (People v. Bolyard (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 583, 589.) Such a judgment depends upon many factors, including the defendant\u2019s credibility, demean- or, general moral character, mentality, social environment, habits, and age. (People v. Dukett (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 432, 452.) The trial judge, in the course of the trial and the sentencing hearing, has an opportunity to consider these factors \u2018which is superior to that afforded by the cold record in this court.\u2019 (People v. Morgan (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 276, 282.) We continue to find that the trial court is normally the proper forum in which a suitable sentence is to be determined and the trial judge\u2019s decisions in regard to sentencing are entitled to great deference and weight.\u201d\nThe record in this case indicates that the trial court carefully considered defendant\u2019s age and background. The court read the presentence report containing information on defendant\u2019s religious and educational background, employment record and social history. The report further revealed that defendant had previous juvenile convictions for arson and armed robbery. The fact that Johnson pleaded guilty and received a lesser sentence is not evidence that Boclaire\u2019s sentence is excessive. (See People v. Colone (1978), 56 Ill. App. 3d 1018, 372 N.E.2d 871.) We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in determining defendant\u2019s sentence.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.\nJudgment affirmed.\nO\u2019CONNOR and CAMPBELL, JJ\u201e concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Judith A. Stewart, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Richard E. Burke, and Dean C. Morask, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VAL BOCLAIRE (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 80-25\nOpinion filed March 30, 1981.\nRehearing denied May 12, 1981.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Judith A. Stewart, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Richard E. Burke, and Dean C. Morask, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0536-01", "first_page_order": 558, "last_page_order": 562 }