{ "id": 3101156, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORY WILLIAMS et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Williams", "decision_date": "1981-09-01", "docket_number": "Nos. 80-965, 80-966, 80-981 cons.", "first_page": "919", "last_page": "925", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "99 Ill. App. 3d 919" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "323 N.E.2d 388", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 Ill. App. 3d 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2706862 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "406-07" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/25/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "414 N.E.2d 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ill. App. 3d 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3148269 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/91/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 N.E.2d 691", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 Ill. App. 3d 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2761221 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "306" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/8/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 N.E.2d 856", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ill. 2d 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2933485 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "282" }, { "page": "282" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/54/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 N.E.2d 1200", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "76 Ill. 2d 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2984278 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "29-30" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/76/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "421 N.E.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 12124902 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "132" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/96/0127-01" ] }, { "cite": "405 N.E.2d 18", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3206427 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "183" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/84/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 N.E.2d 285", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ill. 2d 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5443214 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/72/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "369 N.E.2d 1329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 917", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3400680 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "920" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/54/0917-01" ] }, { "cite": "244 N.E.2d 182", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2853933 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "411-12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/41/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 N.E.2d 179", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 3d 1034", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3353665 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1045" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/60/1034-01" ] }, { "cite": "421 N.E.2d 357", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 12134729 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "450" }, { "page": "449" }, { "page": "452" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/96/0443-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 781, "char_count": 14525, "ocr_confidence": 0.911, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.92388544164509e-08, "percentile": 0.5006882640648161 }, "sha256": "12684b22b8011ea3472b09939d80816562fe4c6d27bc282bcdf03e19ef4dc9a0", "simhash": "1:ead4280e2e550793", "word_count": 2309 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:40:52.281879+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. GREGORY WILLIAMS et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DOWNING\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendants Gregory Williams, Richard Williams, and Daryl Nedd were each charged by indictment with rape, deviate sexual assault, armed robbery, and three counts of aggravated kidnapping. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, pars. 11 \u2014 1, 11 \u2014 3, 18 \u2014 2, and 10 \u2014 2.) A jury found defendants guilty of rape and aggravated kidnapping. The Williams brothers were sentenced to two 10-year terms each, and Nedd was sentenced to two 8-year terms. Defendants ask this court to consider whether (1) the State failed to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) they were denied a fair trial as a result of certain allegedly prejudicial comments, and (3) the circuit court erred in admitting certain evidence at trial.\nIn the early morning hours of June 3,1979, defendants were arrested and charged with the rape of complainant. Testimony at trial indicates complainant worked as a barmaid at a cocktail lounge located near 73d Street and Racine, Chicago. Her boyfriend Coleman Lockett, regularly came to the lounge at the close of business to walk complainant through a residential area to her home located near 71st Street and Ada. On June 3, Lockett and complainant left the lounge at 3:15 a.m.\nComplainant testified that as they walked north on Racine, a car drove by them and stopped several yards beyond their position. The car was then driven in reverse until it reached the couple. Two men exited the car and approached them. Complainant held out her tips for the evening, but no one took the money. Lockett indicated aloud that he knew one of the men. That man, later identified as Richard Williams, disclaimed any acquaintanceship. Richard displayed a handgun, pointed it at Lockett, and told the latter to be silent, turn around, start walking, and not to look back. Complainant stated Richard took her money, grabbed her arm, and forced her into the back seat of the waiting car. The other man, later identified as Daryl Nedd, entered the front passenger seat of the car. The driver, Gregory Williams, then caused the car to speed away.\nAfter driving several blocks to a parking lot near a high school, complainant testified, Richard displayed his handgun at her side and told her she would die if she did not cooperate with him. He told her to kiss him. She was thereafter forced to perform fellatio upon Richard. He then had intercourse with her. Richard then climbed over the car\u2019s front seat and Daryl Nedd climbed into the rear. Nedd held a handgun while complainant was forced to perform fellatio upon him. Nedd then had intercourse with her. Meanwhile, Richard continued to direct his handgun toward the backseat area. After this sexual attack, Nedd exchanged places with Gregory who climbed into the backseat area where complainant was again forced to perform fellatio and engage in intercourse. Richard again forced complainant to engage in intercourse after Gregory\u2019s attack. Complainant was thereafter permitted to dress. Richard refused to set complainant free and threatened to seek her out if she informed police. Richard then gave complainant $10 so he could say he \u201cbought some.\u201d\nNedd started the car and drove in a westerly direction. As a police car approached defendants\u2019 car, Nedd drove faster. Richard placed the two handguns into complainant\u2019s purse. When the car was finally curbed, Richard got out and declared complainant was \u201chis woman.\u201d A policeman separated complainant from Richard when she stated she was not Richard\u2019s girlfriend. She then gave the purse to an officer.\nComplainant was immediately transported to a nearby hospital where she informed the emergency room .physician she had been raped. His examination revealed she suffered lacerations and localized bleeding in her vaginal wall.\nLockett testified that after the car sped away with complainant, he ran to Terry Cooper\u2019s residence. Cooper, complainant\u2019s sister-in-law, testified she heard Lockett banging on her door at about 3:30 in the morning of June 3rd. When she opened the door, Lockett appeared scared and upset. He asked her to call the police because three men with guns had just taken complainant.\nPolice Officer Melvin Darby testified that at about 3:30 a.m. he answered a radio call indicating a green Chevrolet was involved in a kidnapping. After he arrived at Cooper\u2019s residence, Lockett told him he recognized one of the kidnappers as being from around the area of Englewood High School, about a dozen blocks from the kidnapping scene. Darby and Lockett then drove toward that area. As Darby\u2019s patrol car approached the intersection of 60th Street, he observed a vehicle matching the description given by Lockett. That car proceeded westbound until it suddenly increased its speed and turned left on Normal Street. Darby illuminated his Mars lights and gave chase with the siren on. The suspect car accelerated to 50 miles per hour while in a 30-miIe-per-hour speed zone. The chase continued for a couple of blocks and then defendants\u2019 car stopped. After the car\u2019s occupants were ordered to exit, Darby approached complainant. He testified she was \u201cvery shaken up, \u00b0 * * she was crying, you could see tears in her eyes. * 0 * She seemed to be in a daze.\u201d Richard grabbed her, said she was \u201chis lady,\u201d and started to walk away from the scene. He and the other defendants were arrested when complainant denied she was his girlfriend. Complainant handed her purse to the police, telling them that defendants put the guns in her purse.\nDaryl Nedd and Richard Williams both testified for the defense. They each stated that they left a disco lounge prior to encountering complainant at 3 a.m. She allegedly flagged them down as they drove past her. After circling the block once, they returned to her location. Nedd and Williams got out of the car. According to defendants, Lockett indicated complainant was available as a prostitute. Defendants stated they rejected a $20 charge asked for each man and negotiated a charge of $10 each. Lockett then indicated defendants could take complainant in their car to a vacant lot across the street. Defendants stated they did not like the high visibility of that lot, so instead they took complainant to a lot near Englewood High School. Defendants testified complainant engaged in sexual intercourse pursuant to their agreement. Afterward, Richard and complainant took a 20-30 minute walk around the area. According to Richard, they talked about complainant\u2019s desire to find a new boyfriend. When Richard and complainant returned to the parked car, he told her they would take her home after they got some change for his large denomination bills at an all-night gas station located east of the car. According to Nedd, when they first saw the police car, they were going westbound because that was the only way he knew to get to the station. Richard testified they were going westbound to take Gregory to his home. Both denied the car was speeding.\nI\nWe first consider defendants\u2019 challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Defendants point to alleged inconsistent testimony of both Lockett and complainant and contend the absence of evidence of external physical injury to complainant compels the conclusion that she consented as a prostitute. Defendants argue that they produced credible, consistent testimony which exculpated them. They conclude that in light of their acquittals on charges of armed robbery and deviate sexual assault, and because various inconsistencies arose in the testimony by the State\u2019s witnesses, the State proffered evidence insufficient to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of rape and aggravated kidnapping.\nTo obtain a conviction for rape, the complainant\u2019s testimony must be either clear and convincing or independently corroborated. (People v. Thomas (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 443, 450, 421 N.E.2d 357; People v. Graham (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 1034, 1045, 377 N.E.2d 179.) Conflicts in testimony create questions of the credibility of the witnesses, and of the weight, if any, to be given to particular evidence. These issues are for the jury to determine. (People v. Novotny (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 401, 411-12, 244 N.E.2d 182; People v. Secret (1977), 54 Ill. App. 3d 917, 920, 369 N.E.2d 1329, affd (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 371, 381 N.E.2d 285.) Here, complainant\u2019s testimony was clear and convincing. She testified in a positive and consistent manner regarding all essential elements of the rape and kidnapping. Minor variances do not detract from the reasonableness of complainant\u2019s story (see, e.g., People v. Payton (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 181, 183, 405 N.E.2d 18) and exclusively reflect upon the issue of her credibility (People v. Thomas; People v. Hooker (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 127, 132, 421 N.E.2d 301). We cannot say that the State\u2019s evidence was contrary to the jury\u2019s verdict or caused a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.\nIn addition, the mere fact that defendants were found not guilty on some charges does not indicate the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for rape and aggravated kidnapping. (See, e.g., People v. Thomas (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 443, 449.) Furthermore, complainant\u2019s testimony was sufficiently corroborated so as to establish overwhelming evidence of defendants\u2019 guilt. Lockett testified as to the kidnapping. Cooper testified as to Lockett\u2019s immediate call for police aid. Darby testified as to defendants\u2019 flight from the police (see, e.g., People v. Thomas (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 443, 452) and defendants could not consistently account for their travel in a direction opposite their stated destination. Since evidence of physical injury to the victim\u2019s body is not necessary for conviction (People v. Thomas), the absence of external physical injury does not affect the State\u2019s evidence. The evidence that was presented at trial was, we believe, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants are guilty of the rape and aggravated kidnapping of complainant.\nII\nDefendants also contend the assistant state\u2019s attorneys who prosecuted this case made remarks constituting error. We agree. Defendants, however, believe these errors require reversal for a new trial. We disagree.\nThe prosecution made the following statements during the course of trial: defendants were \u201cliars,\u201d \u201crapists,\u201d and \u201cperverts\u201d; defendants were disgusting animals; defendants were beasts; and defendants\u2019 counsel asked disgusting questions of complainant. These comments amount to error. They reach beyond the bounds of propriety. When considered as part of the entire record, these errors are not sufficient to require reversal. The trial took place over several days. The evidence was overwhelming as to defendants\u2019 guilt. We believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the errors failed to contribute to the conviction. (See, e.g., People v. Baptist (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 19, 29-30, 389 N.E.2d 1200.) Absent a showing of prejudice, we conclude the comments were harmless errors.\nDefendants also complain that a prosecutor suggested the only reason one defense counsel represented two of the defendants was to receive a fee. We believe this suggestion was improper. However, it was invited by defense counsel\u2019s improper expression of his personal belief in defendants\u2019 version of the events. Accordingly, we conclude no prejudice resulted and the error was harmless.\nIII\nLastly, defendants complain that certain evidence was improperly admitted at trial. Defendants complain evidence of Lockett\u2019s statement to Cooper regarding the kidnapping constitutes inadmissible hearsay. This issue was not addressed in the written post-trial motions. It is therefore not preserved for review. People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280, 282, 296 N.E.2d 856.\nDefendants also complain that the trial court improperly permitted evidence of complainant\u2019s medical treatment subsequent to the rapes. Defendants contend the evidence was not linked to the offenses charged and was prejudicial. Our review of the record indicates that the assistant state\u2019s attorney did not elicit testimony regarding a connection between subsequent hospital treatment and the rapes. Complainant testified on direct examination only that she had subsequent visits to the hospital. Defendant Nedd\u2019s counsel, however, did elicit connecting testimony regarding the rapes. Complainant testified on cross-examination that she went to the hospital two months after the rapes because she suffered vaginal bleeding caused by the rough treatment she received during the rapes. Such evidence is therefore relevant to the element of force included in the offense of rape. (See People v. Weaver (1972), 8 Ill. App. 3d 299, 306, 290 N.E.2d 691.) Since the evidence was connected to the offenses charged, we find no error.\nTestimony by complainant regarding subsequent psychiatric treatment was not, however, connected by other evidence to the offenses charged. It was therefore error to admit that testimony. (See generally People v. Gillman (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 53, 60, 414 N.E.2d 240.) Based on our review of the record, we believe this evidence was not prejudicial to defendants. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendants\u2019 guilt, we believe the error was harmless.\nAccordingly, we affirm defendants\u2019 convictions.\nAffirmed.\nSTAMOS and BERLIN, JJ., concur.\nDarby testified on recross-examination that he received a \u201cflash message\u201d regarding the incident at about 4:10 that morning.\nSeveral remarks complained of on appeal were not objected to at trial and were not referred to in defendants\u2019 post-trial motion. Defendants have waived review of those remarks. People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280, 282, 296 N.E.2d 856; People v. Taylor (1974), 25 Ill. App. 3d 396, 406-07, 323 N.E.2d 388.\nThe evidence regarding psychiatric treatment subsequent to the rapes was elicited on direct examination as follows:\n\u201cQ: From the time of this rape until today\u2019s date, have you been seeing a psychiatrist and a psychologist?\nA [Complainant]: Yes.\u201d\nDefense counsel made no objection to this exchange.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DOWNING" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ralph Ruebner and Phillip J. Zisook, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellants.", "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Kevin Sweeney, and Constantine N. Rastounes, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the-People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORY WILLIAMS et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNos. 80-965, 80-966, 80-981 cons.\nOpinion filed September 1, 1981.\nRalph Ruebner and Phillip J. Zisook, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellants.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Kevin Sweeney, and Constantine N. Rastounes, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the-People." }, "file_name": "0919-01", "first_page_order": 941, "last_page_order": 947 }