APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. PHILIP
ROMITI, Judge, presiding.
MR. JUSTICE LORENZ DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
1. Arson in violation of section 20-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 20-1).
2. Attempt (arson) in violation of section 8-4 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 8-4).
3. Possession of explosives in violation of section 20-2 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 20-2). *fn1
After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of attempt (arson) and possession of explosives, and was sentenced to ten to fourteen years on the first conviction and fifteen to twenty years on the second, the sentences to run concurrently.
CONTENTIONS RAISED ON APPEAL
1. The trial court erred in ruling that defendant was given the proper Miranda warnings.
2. The pipe bomb seized during his initial arrest, the posters seized during his second arrest, and his oral and written statements given after his second arrest should have been suppressed as the fruits of illegal arrests, searches and seizures.
3. Count II of the indictment fails to charge an offense.
4. The court's instruction to the jury defined the offense of possession of explosives in a manner broader than the indictment.
5. Defendant was denied due process when the court denied his request to be informed, prior to its admission, of the contents of the oral statement made to police.
6. The trial court improperly limited cross-examination of Officer Baker by not allowing impeachment by omission.
7. Defendant was denied a fair trial by the improper reference to a shotgun during the direct examination of Officer Baker and during the State's closing argument.
8. Defendant was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's improperly presenting to the jury evidence of a crucial witness' physical injury.
9. Defendant was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
10. The prosecutor's final argument was improper and denied defendant a fair trial.
11. Two sentences are improper since the crimes of attempt (arson) and possession of explosives arose out of the same conduct or transaction.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress the written and oral statements and the pipe bomb, the following witnesses testified:
Fred Herr, for the State:
He is a Chicago police officer. On July 19, 1968, he was driving his car on a routine patrol near the Hartigan Oil Company premises, and he observed a car parked on the street. He saw a male, later identified as Stephen Johnson, walking in an open field approximately one block west of the Hartigan property and about thirty feet from the car. When he was 100 feet from Johnson, he turned on his spotlight. He saw a thin, hair-line reflection which made it appear that Johnson was carrying a rifle. Johnson attempted to conceal the object with his body. He saw Johnson walk to the car and place the object in the trunk. Herr approached the car and ordered the two individuals inside the car, Paul Martin (alias James Anderson) and defendant, to get out. He asked Johnson to identify himself and present proof of ownership of the car, which Johnson did. When asked what he was doing in the field, Johnson first said "nothing" and then that he was "taking a leak." After another squad car arrived, Herr searched the trunk of the car and recovered a pipe bomb. The three men were then arrested. Defendant and Anderson were charged with disorderly conduct and Johnson with possession of explosives.
Vernon Clifford Baker, for the State:
He is a Chicago police officer. After investigating a fire reported on the Hartigan Oil Company premises, the police discovered that the pipe bomb recovered from under an oil tanker truck and the pipe bomb recovered from the trunk of the Johnson car were made from the same cold rolled steel, had the same powder source, the same wick source, and the same fuse cap. Upon completing their investigation, including an examination of prior arrest sheets, the police served defendant with a warrant for his arrest at his YMCA hotel room on July 26, 1968. Officer Baker read defendant the Miranda warnings of his constitutional rights concerning police interrogation. The officer then seized several posters which were hanging on the walls of defendant's room.
In transit to the police station, defendant told Baker and Officer Sheridan that "they wanted to cause a lot of disturbance, that they wanted to injure and kill a lot of people, and wanted to cause a lot of property damage and upset the forthcoming Democratic National Convention."
Upon arriving at the police station, Baker again read defendant his full Miranda warnings from a card and defendant read the card himself. Defendant then gave a written statement in which he claimed that he had told his two companions he did not want to participate in the fire bombing; that the other two placed the bomb under the fuel tank; and that he was a party to a plan whereby the three pooled their money so that Anderson could make his bond and be set free to pick up the bomb left under the ...