Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

03/22/89 the People of the State of v. Rosalyne Gillespie

March 22, 1989

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

v.

ROSALYNE GILLESPIE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT

537 N.E.2d 841, 181 Ill. App. 3d 1044, 130 Ill. Dec. 512 1989.IL.371

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County; the Hon. Robert R. Buchar, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

JUSTICE BARRY delivered the opinion of the court. WOMBACHER, P.J., and STOUDER, J., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE BARRY

Rosalyne Gillespie appeals from her conviction for the offense of bribery for which she was sentenced to 36 months' probation and 750 hours of public service work.

The evidence at her jury trial showed that defendant was a member of the board of Joliet Junior College and was active in many community affairs. She was a longtime friend of Booker Matthews, the chief of security at the Illinois Youth Center in Joliet, Illinois.

According to Matthews, defendant asked Matthews to reassign one of his employees, Sam Jones, to a less stressful position at the Illinois Youth Center, and she offered to pay him for the favor. Matthews declined but then reported the offer to his supervisor. The police were notified and obtained authorization to record conversations with defendant. Matthews called defendant to see if she was still interested in helping Sam Jones, and the two arranged to meet. During their recorded conversation, defendant agreed to pay Matthews $1,000 in return for the reassignment of Jones to some position that would be less stressful for him.

Matthews and defendant met again, and defendant gave Matthews $400, promising to get the rest of the money after Jones received a new job. Matthews did reassign Jones to a job as a driver. Later, at Matthews' request, he and defendant met with Jones to discuss the job assignment, but no more money was ever paid to Matthews.

Each of the conversations except the first one between defendant and Matthews was tape-recorded. The audio tape was played for the jury, and a transcript of these conversations is in the record on appeal.

Defendant testified in her own behalf. She admitted that she had several conversations with Matthews during which she talked to him about Sam Jones' problems with the stress of his work, and she also admitted that she gave Matthews $400. According to defendant, she was trying to stage a musical program at the Youth Center, and she discussed this program with Matthews. She said she gave him the money to defray the cost of having the program at the Youth Center. She said that during their conversations, she would discuss the program while Matthews kept talking about Jones.

Defendant requested a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment, but the trial court refused to give the instruction on the ground that defendant had not admitted the commission of the offense, and therefore entrapment would be an inconsistent defense. A verdict of guilty was returned by the jury.

The sole question on appeal is whether defendant was entitled to an instruction concerning the affirmative defense of entrapment. We conclude that she was so entitled.

It was long the rule in Illinois that a defense of entrapment was not available to a defendant who did not admit committing the crime charged. (People v. Fleming (1971), 50 Ill. 2d 141, 277 N.E.2d 872.) However, that rule was abrogated by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. United States ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.