People v. Liddell

¶1dissenting:

¶2Defendant did not testify at the trial. His out-of-court statement of January 17, 1974, although it contains an admission as to the fact of stabbing, does not purport to be a confession of guilt but a recital of exculpatory matters in justification. It was offered by the State and was relevant to its case for two purposes only, viz., (1) to show defendant’s admission of involvement in the killing, and (2) to show his utterance of exculpatory statements that are shown false by other proof, and which may therefore be considered as circumstantial evidence of defendant’s consciousness of guilt. (United States v. Riso, 405 F.2d 134 (7th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 959; People v. Wilson, 8 Ill.App.3d 1075, 291 N.E.2d 270, 273 ( 5th Dist. 1972).) To the extent that its self-serving content is uncorroborated and found to be in conflict with other items of evidence and fair inferences, the circuit judge, as trier of fact, was entitled to reject it even though the State did not directly rebut the exculpatory language (People v. Warren, 33 Ill.2d 168, 210 N.E.2d 507 (1965).) His judgment should not be disturbed here where it is not clearly erroneous. People v. Anthony, 28 Ill.2d 65,190 N.E.2d 837 (1963).

¶3The majority of this court conclude that the version of facts contained in defendant’s out-of-court statement is the sole version of what occurred, and that defendant’s assertions that he was being choked by decedent and therefore acted in self-defense is corroborated by medical proof. Since defendant’s statement was given many hours after the stabbing and after considerable opportunity for reflection, I think the circuit court correctly tested its veracity by measuring it closely for its capacity to withstand successfully, a detailed scrutiny. I find other evidence and compelling inferences which support the circuit judge’s conclusion that many important parts of defendant’s extrajudicial statement are improbable and unworthy of credence.

¶4There was evidence admitted to the record of a dying declaration by decedent that “Liddell did it.” No claim is made here that this evidence was improperly received. There is conflicting proof as to whether decedent and defendant quarreled in the shed about a gambling debt, and in respect to the important matter of who left the shed first, or whether they left together as defendant’s statement asserts. Jenkins admitted during the trial to having given a statement to the police that decedent left the shed first and defendant followed after him, but claimed at the trial that he couldn’t remember who left first.* Defendant’s version that he and decedent left together, and that decedent “jumped” him as they got outside leaves wholly unexplained the fact that after the killing, an automobile matching the description of the one decedent had bear using was found standing in the alley near the shed with its motor still running. That fact considered with the other proof seems more consistent with the conclusion and inference that defendant and decedent had been playing dice in the shed and quarreled over decedent’s refusal to pay; that the decedent got up and left first, got into his automobile and started the engine to leave the area when he was interrupted in his departure by defendant who followed him out. The accuracy of defendant’s self-serving declaration as to who first accosted whom becomes colored by doubt and improbability because of its failure to account for the important item of evidence that the motor of decedent’s car was found running. The medical evidence as to decedent’s muscle injury, even if it be related to the claim of a sore neck, lends no corroborative support whatever to the claim that decedent was the aggressor.

¶5Defendant admitted in his out-of-court statement that he knew what he was doing and what was happening, that he took a six-inch pocket knife from his front pants pocket while decedent was choking him, that he opened the blade and, holding the knife in his right hand, he “cut” decedent. He said he did not know where he cut decedent, and that he lost his knife at the scene. The knife was never found. He also stated as excuse for leaving the scene and failing to give assistance that he did not know decedent was hurt because decedent just walked away, not toward the car, but toward the Jenkins house. The physical evidence is that decedent was wearing a heavy, leather-trimmed, blue, outer coat with a pile lining over other winter clothing, and that defendant plunged his knife through all decedent’s heavy winter dress deeply into the vital area of the heart. The location of the cut through decedent’s outer coat indicates there was no disarray of clothing from any struggle. The “cut” into decedent’s body angulated downward and outward from the chest, which strongly suggests that it was delivered overhand by defendant who was eight inches shorter than decedent. The cut collapsed decedent’s left lung and entered the heart. The wound was at least 2 inches deep into the body and 2 inches long; it was a “gaping” injury in the sense that the full thickness of the chest wall was penetrated and the tissues separated right down into the chest cavity which was exposed. The bleeding was profuse. Decedent did not leave in the direction of his automobile. Obviously, he had been immediately disabled from using it. As he moved away from the defendant, decedent left a trail of blood from the shed near the alley all the way around to the front porch of the Jenkins house where he collapsed on the steps. He was dead within fifteen minutes to one-half hour from loss of blood. All his clothing, including the outside of his blue coat, became drenched with blood. Defendant did not report the incident to any of his friends in the shed or solicit from them any help in locating his knife. He “walked away” and went home. When the police arrived at his home later to take defendant into custody, they were required to wait outside while defendant redressed. Jenkins testified that he was in the shed during the time the stabbing occurred outside and that he heard no altercation or any pleas of defendant’s. No testimony was offered that anyone in the shed heard pleas or commotion outside.

¶6Notwithstanding the conclusion of the majority of this court that the automobile matching the description of defendant’s is an “unidentified” vehicle, and that all inference contrary to those they accept are speculation, I am persuaded that the circuit judge could justifiably conclude from this record that defendant’s self-serving assertions that he did not know decedent was hurt and that the knife became lost were so improbable as to be unworthy of credence. The nature of the injury and description of the scene supports the more reasonable inference that defendant left the area and did not report the incident to his friends in the shed because he was blood-splattered and was carrying a badly stained weapon, and that he fled directly home where he changed clothes. If the circuit judge disbelieved the exculpatory declarations, as he apparently did, he was entitled to consider defendant’s flight from the scene and the disappearance or suppression of the knife as further circumstantial evidence of guilt. I do not concur in the great significance given by the majority to the purported fact that what presumably was defendant’s hat fell off in the struggle outside the shed (which I believe could operate to support several other versions of what occurred), nor do I concur in their confident assertion that the dying decedent “walked” to the porch, or in their strained conclusion that an armed shorter man would not likely attack a taller unarmed man.

¶7Defendant has raised and argued a second issue that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress his extrajudicial statement. The only evidence in the record which even purports to suggest a self-defense theory is contained in the declarations of that instrument; it’s difficult to perceive, therefore, how the failure to suppress the statement could be considered harmful to defendant. The evidence was sufficient to support a conviction without it. In any event, I consider the issue waived for the reason that the motion is not set forth in the excerpts. Courts of review will not enter upon a search of the record to find reasons to reverse.

¶8I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court.