{ "id": 12144019, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT WARE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Ware", "decision_date": "1981-05-28", "docket_number": "No. 79-1803", "first_page": "923", "last_page": "928", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 923" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "397 N.E.2d 863", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 Ill. App. 3d 869", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5603603 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/78/0869-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 N.E.2d 28", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "76 Ill. App. 3d 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3282306 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/76/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "387 N.E.2d 1010", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 Ill. App. 3d 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5576356 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/70/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 N.E.2d 3", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 Ill. 2d 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2937164 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/55/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 N.E.2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "685" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ill. 2d 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5443843 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "436" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/72/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "351 N.E.2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 3d 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2964844 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/40/0105-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 534, "char_count": 10480, "ocr_confidence": 0.902, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.071246695882213e-08, "percentile": 0.46679092101508624 }, "sha256": "4edb350a129da2264b40cc0230a8efb37cd58817072bbd4f4b4a19845e3ed331", "simhash": "1:bf8f7a5eac3a1ff3", "word_count": 1767 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:31:40.709125+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "ROMITI, P. J\u201e and LINN, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT WARE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE JIGANTI\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the defendant, Robert Ware, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years\u2019 imprisonment. He contends on appeal that: (1) the State did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) his privately retained counsel was incompetent; and (3) the trial court improperly restricted cross-examination of a witness.\nOtis Bates testified that on the evening of June 8, 1979, he and his brother Anthony Bates saw Linda Bagsby, Anthony\u2019s wife, standing outside the Paradise Lounge. They decided to wait outside so Anthony could \u201csee if [Linda] was doing anything behind his back that he should know about.\u201d Approximately 45 minutes later, Linda Bagsby and her sister-in-law, Joanne Bagsby, left the lounge with two men \u2014 Stanley Collins and the defendant. They entered the defendant\u2019s car. Anthony Bates then went to the car, knocked on the window and said \u201cthis is my wife, open the door.\u201d He reached into the car and started to hit Linda Bagsby. The defendant told everyone to get out of the car. Otis and Anthony Bates started to walk toward the back of the car when the defendant yelled to Anthony, \u201cHey, I got something for you.\u201d Anthony responded, \u201cYou have something for me,\u201d and walked to the front of the car. The defendant pointed a gun at Anthony and fired two shots. The first shot missed. After the second shot, Anthony fell to the ground. The defendant then drove away. Otis Bates stated that immediately prior to the second shot, Anthony\u2019s hands were empty and were placed down by his sides.\nLinda Bagsby testified that she and her three children had lived with Anthony Bates for six years and that he provided their support. Her account of the shooting was essentially the same as that of Otis Bates. She stated that Anthony Bates did not strike the defendant. On cross-examination, the trial court sustained an objection to the defendant\u2019s inquiry as to whether Linda Bagsby was aware that she could file a claim under the Crime Victims Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 70, par. 71 et seq.). Much of Linda Bagsby\u2019s testimony was corroborated by her sister-in-law, Joanne Bagsby.\nInvestigator Murphy testified that he was assigned to investigate the death of Anthony Bates. As part of this investigation, he spoke with both Linda and Joanne Bagsby. The police report regarding his conversation with Joanne did not indicate that Anthony Bates went to the rear of the car. Murphy stated that a police report contains only general information intended to refresh the investigator\u2019s memory.\nStanley Collins, a friend of the defendant, testified that he was the disc jockey at the Paradise Lounge. On the night of the incident, he asked the defendant to give Linda and Joanne Bagsby a ride home. The defendant agreed and they all left together. After they entered the defendant\u2019s car, Anthony Bates ran to the car, opened the door and \u201cplunged over in the back seat.\u201d He \u201cstarted beating on Linda.\u201d The defendant ordered everyone out of the car. Anthony Bates hit the defendant and said, \u201cman, this is my wife.\u201d He tried to get into the front seat to pursue the defendant and struck the defendant again. Anthony got out of the car, ran to the driver\u2019s side and tried to kick the defendant. The defendant moved to the passenger side of the car. Anthony then came back around the front of the car to the passenger side. The defendant moved back to the driver\u2019s side, got out of the car and told Anthony not to come back. Anthony came toward the defendant, saying he would \u201cget him.\u201d The defendant stood behind the open car door and fired a shot. Anthony kept coming toward the defendant and said, \u201cI\u2019m going to kick your ass.\u201d The defendant fired a second shot and Anthony fell.\nOn cross-examination, Collins denied telling Investigator Murphy that after the defendant got out of the vehicle, the defendant told Anthony, \u201cI\u2019m going to hurt you.\u201d He also stated that he drank a case of beer on the night of the shooting.\nAt that point the defense rested and the State called Investigator Murphy in rebuttal. Murphy testified that on June 8, 1979, he had a conversation with Stanley Collins. Collins told Murphy that after the defendant exited his car, the defendant told Anthony, \u201cI\u2019m going to hurt you.\u201d Murphy further stated that Stanley Collins never told him that Anthony ran around the front of the car, opened the driver\u2019s door, and kicked the defendant. Also, Collins never told Murphy that the defendant slid back and forth across the driver\u2019s seat while Anthony ran around the car in an attempt to catch the defendant.\nThe defendant first contends that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of murder. Specifically, he argues that the State did not rebut his claim of self-defense as presented through the testimony of Stanley Collins.\nWhether the use of force which results in death was justified is a question of fact for the jury. A court of review will not overturn a jury\u2019s determination of guilt unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable or unsatisfactory as to raise a reasonable doubt. (People v. Acevedo (1976), 40 Ill. App. 3d 105, 351 N.E.2d 359.) The testimony of Otis Bates and Linda Bagsby established that Anthony Bates knocked on the window of the car in which Linda Bagsby, Joanne Bagsby, Stanley Collins and the defendant were seated. Anthony reached into the car and hit Linda, but did not hit the defendant. Anthony and Otis Bates then started to walk away from the defendant and toward the end of the car when the defendant yelled to Anthony, \u201chey, I got something for you.\u201d Anthony walked back toward the defendant with his hands empty and down by his sides. The defendant fired two shots, one of which struck Anthony, and drove away. The only evidence that the defendant was acting in self-defense or under serious provocation was the testimony of Stanley Collins. Collins stated that Anthony Bates hit the defendant at least three times while they were in the car. When the defendant got out of the car, Anthony Bates ran toward him saying that he would \u201cget him,\u201d and \u201ckick [his] ass.\u201d The defendant fired a shot. Anthony Bates kept moving toward him. The defendant fired again and Anthony fell. While this testimony may have been sufficient to support a finding of self-defense or serious provocation, it is apparent that the jury chose to believe the State\u2019s witnesses rather than the defendant\u2019s. Collins\u2019 testimony was impeached on several grounds, and he admitted drinking a case of beer on the night of the shooting. The account of the incident given by Linda Bagsby and Otis Bates was neither unreasonable nor improbable. We therefore decline to overturn the determination of the jury that the defendant was proven guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThe defendant next contends that the performance of his privately retained counsel was incompetent. He argues that since his \u201cstate of mind\u201d during the shooting was crucial to the defense, his counsel\u2019s decision not to allow him to testify was clear evidence of incompetence. He also claims that his counsel did not properly elicit information from Stanley Collins as to whether Anthony Bates reached into his pockets before the shooting, and that he conducted cross-examination into areas not in issue.\nIn People v. Murphy (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 421, 436, 381 N.E.2d 677, 685, the Illinois Supreme Court stated that a court of review \u201c \u2018will not reverse a conviction because of the incompetency of counsel unless the representation is of such a low caliber as to amount to no representation at all or reduces the court proceedings to a farce or sham.\u2019 \u201d The defendant must show that he was substantially prejudiced by defense counsel\u2019s representation, and that absent this prejudice, the outcome of the trial would probably have been different. A claim of prejudice cannot be based on mere speculation or conjecture. People v. Witherspoon (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 18, 302 N.E.2d 3.\nThere is no evidence in the record to suggest that the decision of the defendant not to testify was anything but a mutual decision on the part of the defendant and his attorney. Also, the defendant\u2019s claim that Collins could have been indicating that Anthony Bates was reaching into his pockets prior to the shooting is based on mere conjecture. The record further shows that defense counsel cross-examined Otis Bates and Linda Bagsby with regard to the events which occurred immediately prior to the shooting. Even if he did concentrate on matters not directly in issue, this alone is not sufficient to reduce the proceeding to a farce or sham.\nThe defendant\u2019s last contention is that the trial court erred in not permitting him to cross-examine Linda Bagsby as to whether she was aware that she could file a claim under the Illinois Crime Victims Compensation Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 70, par. 71 et seq.) He maintains that evidence of any expected financial gain would tend to impeach the witness by showing interest, bias or motive.\nThe scope of cross-examination, even with regard to bias, rests in the discretion of the trial court. (People v. Jones (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 338, 387 N.E.2d 1010.) Reversible error will be found only where there is a clear abuse of this discretion. Evidence showing bias must be direct and positive rather than remote or uncertain. People v. Nowak (1979), 76 Ill. App. 3d 472, 395 N.E.2d 28.\nHere, defense counsel made no indication to the trial court that he had information showing that Linda Bagsby had obtained, applied or was going to apply for compensation under the Act. Any testimony concerning whether Linda Bagsby was aware of her possible eligibility would have been speculative and uncertain evidence of bias and was therefore properly excluded by the trial court. See People v. Bradford (1979), 78 Ill. App. 3d 869, 397 N.E.2d 863.\nAccordingly, the conviction of the defendant is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nROMITI, P. J\u201e and LINN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE JIGANTI" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Timothy P. O\u2019Neill, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Richard Burke, and Dean Corask, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT WARE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 79-1803\nOpinion filed May 28, 1981.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Timothy P. O\u2019Neill, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Richard Burke, and Dean Corask, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0923-01", "first_page_order": 945, "last_page_order": 950 }