APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. PAUL A.
O'MALLEY, Judge, presiding.
MR. JUSTICE MCGLOON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
L.C. Davis was charged by indictment with rape and robbery. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and defendant was sentenced to 28 years for rape and seven years for robbery. Defendant appeals.
On appeal, defendant argues that (1) his identity was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the cause should be remanded for resentencing.
At trial, the complainant testified that at approximately 4 p.m. on December 4, 1978, she returned to her hotel room in Chicago. While watching television, she heard someone call "room service" and a knock on her door. She opened the door, unlatched the chain, and a man whom she identified as defendant forced the door open and entered her room.
Defendant threatened to kill the complainant if she spoke and placed his hand in his coat pocket. The complainant believed defendant was armed. She was then ordered to undress. Defendant removed his coat, pants, and underwear and forced complainant to engage in intercourse. About one minute later, defendant arose and dressed himself. He pulled the telephone cord from the socket, threatened to kill complainant if she spoke, and took $40 after searching complainant's purse and valise. As defendant left the room, he warned complainant that he would kill her if she followed him.
When the police arrived, she described her assailant as black, 25 years old, slightly taller than six feet, about 160 pounds, with a gold earring, and straightened black hair. He was wearing dark slacks and a gray herringbone coat. The coat was admitted into evidence and complainant stated it did not appear to be gray.
Police officers took complainant to a hospital where a vaginal smear was taken. The parties stipulated that laboratory tests indicated the presence of sperm.
When complainant returned to the hotel, police investigators showed her two albums containing approximately 400 photographs. She did not identify any of those portrayed as her assailant. Investigator Dorociak testified that defendant's photo was not among those shown to complainant. Several weeks later, police mailed complainant eight photos. She identified defendant's photograph. On January 26, 1979, she viewed a lineup of five men and identified defendant as her assailant.
William Arnos, a Chicago police officer, testified that he arrested defendant about one week after the incident. Defendant's height was six feet, one inch. He weighed 160 pounds, wore earrings in his right ear and combed his hair back.
Defendant testified that he had three tattoos on his upper body: a four-inch-by-one-inch tattoo on his chest reading "Scorpio", a three-inch-by-three-inch tattoo on his upper right arm reading "Mom", and a two-inch-by-three-inch tattoo on his left forearm reading "L.C." He received the first two tattoos in 1973 and the latter in 1978. He was not in the hotel on the day in question. He had ear piercing for two, not one, earrings and had a brown, not beige, herringbone coat.
Allen Slakis, a Chicago police officer, testified that the record of his interview with the complainant indicated that defendant removed all his clothes. The complainant could not recall making this statement to police.
First, defendant contends that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because complainant's identification testimony was doubtful. Defendant points to complainant's statement to police immediately after the incident that defendant removed all his clothing and her failure to notice his tattoos. He also alleges that the room was dimly lit and complainant would have had difficulty observing his features.
The identification testimony of a single witness is sufficient to convict if the identification is positive and the witness is credible. (People v. Tate (1978), 64 Ill. App.3d 1, 380 N.E.2d 976; People v. Henderson (1976), 36 Ill. App.3d 355, 344 N.E.2d 239.) The important factor is the ability of the witness to make a positive identification after having an adequate opportunity to view the offender at the time of the crime. (People v. Mendoza (1978), 62 Ill. App.3d 609, 378 N.E.2d 1318, citing People v. Mays (1976), 38 Ill. App.3d 182, 347 N.E.2d 235.) Omissions, discrepancies, and inaccuracies in details regarding the ...