Man freed after sentence tossed in Illinois teen's death

[Esmeralda]

Man freed after sentence tossed in Illinois teen's death.

CHICAGO (AP) — A man who spent nearly 30 years in prison for the 1984 sexual assault and slaying of a 15-year-old suburban Chicago girl left prison a free man Wednesday after a judge threw out charges against him.

Christopher Abernathy, 48, was released after a judge agreed to a prosecutor's request to vacate his life sentence, Illinois Corrections Department spokesman Tom Shaer said. Abernathy had been sentenced to life in 1987, but DNA testing last August excluded him from the case.

"He is elated and just so happy that he's able to go home, that he's free and gets to be with his family," his attorney, Lauren Kaeseberg, said. She said Abernathy didn't make a statement as he left the Stateville Correctional Center near Joliet.

Abernathy was represented by the Illinois Innocence Project based at the University of Illinois-Springfield. His attorneys said the person who originally accused him has recanted the testimony.

Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez said a reinvestigation of the case turned up "several troubling aspects ... including the fact that Abernathy may have suffered from a diminished mental capacity and that he wrote and signed a confession that was void of any significant details of the crime."

Abernathy was convicted in the Oct. 3, 1984, sexual assault and murder of Kristina Hickey, a 15-year-old high school student who went missing after a choir concert at Rich East High School in Park Forest, according to the Illinois Innocence Project. Her body was found two days later under bushes near a shopping center.


Christopher Abernathy is released from the Stateville Correctional Center, Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015, …
Attorneys for Abernathy said he was arrested more than a year later and signed a statement implicating himself after more than 40 hours of interrogation. Abernathy later said he was coerced into signing the document.

Abernathy had documented learning disabilities and left school at age 15, his attorneys said.

"He was able to be coerced into signing a confession after being told that was the only way he could go home and see his mother," Kaeseberg said.

The case is part of the prosecutor's Conviction Integrity Unit that was created in 2012 to reinvestigate wrongful or questionable convictions.

Kaeseberg said Abernathy had no concrete plans for now. He must get acclimated to life outside prison, she said, adding that the days and weeks that follow his release will be critical to his success.

"We know the road ahead will be difficult for him after spending his entire adult life imprisoned for a crime he did not commit," Illinois Innocence Project founding director Larry Golden said. Man freed after sentence tossed in Illinois teen s death - Yahoo News


This is really sad. I suppose his mother is dead, and he is mentally slow.

 

[Iceweasel]

These stories are always troubling. But even back then you could demand legal representation and admitting to guilt when innocent is never a good thing. How could anyone not know that?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

That is a false report. He admitted to a friend of his he had murdered the girl. He wasn't mentally challenged. With the system as crooked as it is - do you not think they could claim DNA didn't match in order to release him? It wasn't based on DNA - the case was based on evidence of his own admission to murdering the girl to his friend.

Life Term In Murder Of Teen Girl - Chicago Tribune

Life Term In Murder Of Teen Girl
February 26, 1987|By Andrew Fegelman

A Cook County judge told a 20-year-old Midlothian man Wednesday that although he normally would be lenient for a first offense, the man`s crime was too heinous to merit anything less than a sentence of life in prison without parole.

Judge Ronald Crane recounted the rape and murder of a 15-year-old Rich East High School sophomore during the sentencing hearing of Christopher Abernathy in the Markham branch of Circuit Court. The judge castigated Abernathy, saying that he hopes Abernathy will realize the despicable nature of his crime as he lies in his jail cell.

Prosecutors called no witnesses during the sentencing hearing but did present a statement from the mother of the victim, Kristina Hickey. The girl was stabbed to death on Oct. 3, 1984, while she was returning to her Park Forest home after singing in a high school concert.

``There is no sentence that will bring my daughter back, but the thought of Abernathy ever being let out of jail to mingle with society and perhaps commit a vicious and brutal attack on anyone else would be more than I could stand emotionally,`` said Patricia Hickey in the written statement presented to Crane before the sentencing.

``He has his life, which is more than my daughter will ever have again. I hope and pray that the courts put him away for the rest of his life so he can never again enjoy the freedom and joy of living that he so carelessly destroyed for my 15-year-old daughter.``

Abernathy was arrested for the murder in December, 1985, over a year after Hickey`s body was found in the bushes at the Park Forest Plaza shopping center. The arrest came as a result of information provided by a friend of Abernathy who told police Abernathy had confessed the murder to him.

A jury convicted Abernathy on Jan. 15 on charges of murder, robbery and aggravated criminal sexual assault. Because Abernathy was 17 at the time of the murder, he was ineligible to be sentenced to death under Illinois law.
_______________
When you have the evidence of what he had stolen in his possession, the testimony of his friend that he told him he raped and killed the girl, the evidence of sexual assault - how do you come up 30 yrs later with he is now innocent? - you know there is something very strange going on with this story.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

He's 17 at the time of the rape/murder - he isn't tried until 3 years later and he doesn't get a death sentence? And now this. Wow.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Look at the evidence in this case that has suddenly been thrown out the window! Amazing!

FindACase 153 09 20 89 the People of the State of v. Christopher Abernathy

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION



545 N.E.2d 201, 189 Ill. App. 3d 292, 136 Ill. Dec. 677 1989.IL.1447

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Ronald J. Crane, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court. McNAMARA* and RIZZI, JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE WHITE

Following a jury trial, defendant, Christopher Abernathy, was found guilty of the murder, attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and armed robbery of Kristina Hickey. Defendant was sentenced to a term of natural life imprisonment for the murder, 30 years' imprisonment for the armed robbery and 30 years' imprisonment for the aggravated criminal sexual assault. The trial court merged the conviction of attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault into the conviction for aggravated criminal sexual assault.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence on the following grounds: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements; (2) the trial court unduly restricted the defense's cross-examination of a key State witness; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State's Attorney to show a videotape of Kristina Hickey to the jury; (4) certain remarks made by the State's Attorney in closing argument constituted reversible error; (5) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter; (6) the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of natural life imprisonment; and (7) the Illinois penalty statutes for murder violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions. We affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Defendant testified that he made a statement to Detective Kuester after signing the waiver form. He also gave Detective Kuester permission to take hair and other samples from his body as well as to search his car. He was not forced to sign the voluntary release forms for the samples. Detective Kuester then stopped questioning him. He was given dinner and taken to the lockup for the night.

Defendant testified that the morning after his arrest, Detective Kuester did not question him regarding Kristina Hickey's death. That afternoon, however, Detective Kuester told him that he had talked to several people that defendant had mentioned in the November 30, 1985, statement. Defendant told Detective Kuester that he had told him the truth and agreed to take a polygraph test. Detective Kuester then stopped the questioning. Later that afternoon, defendant was taken to the polygraph examiner's office where he asked to have an attorney appointed for him. Defendant testified, however, that he wanted to take the polygraph test. He signed a form waiving his constitutional rights because he wanted to take the test.

After the polygraph test, defendant talked with Detective Kuester in the polygraph examiner's office. Defendant testified that Detective Kuester did not give him the Miranda warnings at any time during this conversation. Detective Kuester "made him talk" about Kristina Hickey's death. He gave Detective Kuester a written statement regarding the circumstances of Kristina's death and was taken back to the Park Forest police station.

Defendant testified that, later that night, he talked to a State's Attorney who gave him the Miranda warnings for the first time. He was given the Miranda warnings a second time in the presence of a court reporter. He understood his constitutional rights a "little, but not all the way." He did understand that he had a right to an attorney and that he did not have to say anything if he didn't want to. However, he answered the State's Attorney's questions because "they weren't giving [him] one." He was then taken to the lockup.

Defendant testified that he cooperated with the police the whole time that he was in custody because he had nothing to hide. Defendant was then asked the following questions:

"Q. What did Kuester ever tell you to make you give a statement against your will?

A. That I could go home.

Q. He told you that if you confessed to the murder of Kristina Hickey, he would let you go home?

A. In a way, yes.

Q. What were his words that he used, sir?

A. I can't remember the exact words he used."

On redirect examination, defendant testified that he was upset and frightened at the time of his arrest. He did not understand the need to have an attorney represent him. The word "will" in the sentence "an attorney will be appointed for you" means "in the future."

On re-cross-examination, defendant was asked: "How could you ask for a lawyer, if you didn't know you needed one?" Defendant replied: "I always watched -- when I was outside, I would watch maybe TV once in a while."

Detective Carl Kuester testified that at, approximately 1 p.m., on November 30, 1985, he was told that defendant had been detained by the Mokena police department. He drove to the Mokena police station to transport defendant to the Park Forest police station. While at the Mokena police station, he advised defendant of his constitutional rights. Defendant indicated that he understood his rights. Detective Kuester then requested that defendant accompany him to the Park Forest police station. At the Park Forest police station, he placed defendant in the detective office.

Defendant was not handcuffed. At approximately 4:05 p.m., he advised defendant of his constitutional rights for the second time.

Defendant signed a waiver form indicating that he understood his rights.

Defendant did not ask him for an attorney nor did defendant indicate that he wanted to remain silent. He then interviewed defendant.

Defendant was fed and placed in a cell for the night at about 8 p.m. or 9 p.m.
FindACase 153 09 20 89 the People of the State of v. Christopher Abernathy

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

FindACase 153 09 20 89 the People of the State of v. Christopher Abernathy

Assistant State's Attorney Paul Perry testified that on December 1, 1985, defendant made an oral statement admitting his involvement in Kristina's death. Defendant later agreed to give a court-reported statement in which he admitted killing Kristina. Defendant said that he had known Kristina for about a year before her death. On October 3, 1984, he saw Kristina in the vicinity of the Park Forest Plaza. Kristina was crying. Defendant asked her what was wrong. She said she had had a fight with her boyfriend. Defendant asked her the reason for the fight, and she replied that it was none of his business. Defendant then asked her if she wanted him to walk her home and she said yes. As they were walking, defendant kept asking her about the fight. She became upset and hit him. He pushed her "like to cheer her up." They started arguing. They were next to the Marshall Field's store when "[he] might have hit her without realizing it. Then [he] probably accidentally knocked her down." He "got on top of her," pushed her dress up and pulled her panties down. He was trying to have sex with her. He had a butterfly knife with a three or four inch blade in his hand. "[He] had her pinned. [He] didn't realize the knife was in [his] hand at the time. Then she was struggling. Then [he] might have, without realizing, stabbed her once or twice" in the chest. She threw him off and he got back on her. He pinned her arms to her chest. "Then she tried to pull her hands away and instead of pulling, she pushed them up. Then she turned her head suddenly and [he] might have cut her" neck "on accident." He grabbed her purse and her slip, took his picture out of the purse and threw the purse and the slip away. Two days later, he was treated at South Suburban Hospital for injuries to his face, chest, ribs and arm that he suffered when he ran into a tree.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Then he claims he killed her by "Accident"..........

FindACase 153 09 20 89 the People of the State of v. Christopher Abernathy

In the present case, the evidence clearly shows that Kristina Hickey was murdered. Alan Kulovitz, the evidence technician, testified that the left side of Kristina's dress did not have blood on it, an indication that the dress had been folded before Kristina was stabbed in the chest. Mr. Kulovitz also testified that, when he examined Kristina's body, he observed that her arms were behind her back and that her right arm was held in that position with the belt from her coat. Mr. Kulovitz was able to determine from the pattern of blood from the chest wound and from the mound of dirt covering Kristina's right foot that Kristina's body was in the same position as when death occurred. Dr. Eupil Choi testified that he observed abrasions on the right side of Kristina's face which were probably caused by her face being struck against an object. There were multiple abrasions and skin bruisings on the left side of Kristina's neck and collar bone and over the left jaw which were consistent with someone kneeling on her shoulder and neck or with her face being struck with some object. Dr. Choi also found blood between Kristina's scalp and her skull, consistent with her head being struck against a hard surface. Lastly, Dr. Choi observed a single, deep slash wound, six inches in length, over the front of Kristina's neck and extending from side to side. There was a complete transection of Kristina's throat, trachea and esophagus. We believe that the manner in which Kristina was killed, the numerous bruises on her body and the evidence that her right arm had been tied behind her body defeat defendant's claim that his actions were reckless. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter. See People v. Foster, 119 Ill. 2d at 88 (holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter where the "record emphatically reject[ed] the defendant's assertion that his actions were reckless and not intentional"); People v. Ward (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 443, 451, 463 N.E.2d 696 (holding that the severity of the beating negated any suggestion that defendant's conduct was only reckless); People v. Mitchell (1987), 163 Ill. App. 3d 58, 66-68, 516 N.E.2d 500 (holding that evidence adduced at trial that the cut on the victim's neck extended virtually from ear to ear, severing the jugular vein and lacerating the larynx was consistent with murder and not involuntary manslaughter); People v. Fenderson (1987), 157 Ill. App. 3d 537, 548, 510 N.E.2d 479 (holding that the severity of the victim's injuries negated any suggestion that defendant's conduct was only reckless).

Defendant claims that the statements he gave to Assistant State's Attorney Paul Perry and Detective Kuester show that his actions were reckless. We disagree.

----------------> Defendant told Detective Kuester that he accidentally cut Kristina's neck. Defendant told Assistant State's Attorney Perry that he "didn't realize the knife was in [his] hand at the time" and he "might have, without realizing, stabbed [Kristina] once or twice" in the chest. Defendant also told Perry that Kristina turned her head suddenly and [defendant] might have cut her neck "on accident." A defense theory that death was by accident belies the element of reckless disregard for one's actions which is necessary to sustain an involuntary manslaughter conviction. (People v. Moore (1980), 89 Ill. App. 3d 202, 208-09, 411 N.E.2d 579.) Thus, an instruction of involuntary manslaughter should be refused where the theory is that death was by accident or misadventure. (People v. Lowe (1970), 122 Ill. App. 2d 197, 209, 258 N.E.2d 370.) Defendant's statements that he killed Kristina Hickey by accident could not justify the giving of an instruction of involuntary manslaughter.
___________________
So first he kills her by "Accident" and when that does not work - the story changes to - they've got the wrong person because of new DNA evidence???? Seriously?!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

and then there is this:

Section 5-8-1(a)(1) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-1(a)(1)) provides in relevant part:

"f the court finds that the murder was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty or that any of the aggravating factors listed in subsection (b) of Section 9--1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 are present, the court may sentence the defendant to a term of natural life imprisonment . . .."

An aggravating factor listed in section 9-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 9-1) is that the victim was killed during the course of another felony, such as armed robbery or rape.

In the present case, defendant sexually assaulted, robbed and killed Kristina Hickey. Thus, the trial court was authorized by statute to impose a sentence of life imprisonment. Furthermore, the trial court found that "the murder of Kristina Hickey was accompanied by brutal behavior indicative of wanton cruelty," another basis for imposition of a life sentence.

Defendant disputes the trial court's finding that his conduct was indicative of wanton cruelty. He asserts that his conduct was neither brutal nor heinous since he "accidentally" inflicted the chest wounds and slashed Kristina Hickey's neck. He also notes that the medical evidence indicated that Kristina died very quickly. Conduct is "heinous" if it is hatefully or shockingly evil, grossly bad, enormously and flagrantly criminal. (People v. La Pointe, 88 Ill. 2d at 501; People v. Nester (1984), 123 Ill. App. 3d 501, 504, 462 N.E.2d 1011.) "Brutal" includes conduct which is grossly ruthless, devoid of mercy or compassion, or cruel and cold-blooded. (People v. La Pointe, 88 Ill. 2d at 501.) A showing that torture or unnecessary pain was inflicted upon the victim is not a prerequisite to finding that the defendant's behavior was brutal or heinous. People v. La Pointe, 88 Ill. 2d at 501; People v. Hickman (1986), 143 Ill. App. 3d 195, 205, 492 N.E.2d 1041.

As noted above, the evidence at trial shows that defendant's actions in killing Kristina were deliberate and not merely "accidental." The testimony also shows that defendant tied Kristina's right hand behind her back and inflicted numerous bruises and abrasions on her body. The abrasions on the right side of Kristina's face were probably caused by her face being struck against an object. The bruises on the left side of her neck and collar bone were consistent with someone kneeling on her shoulder and neck or with someone striking her with some object. A three-inch bruise on her left jaw was consistent with her head being slammed against a hard surface. Lastly, the blood between her scalp and skull indicated that her head had been struck against a hard surface. The testimony also shows that defendant stabbed Kristina twice in the chest and then slashed her throat, trachea and esophagus. Defendant's conduct was shockingly evil, cruel and devoid of mercy.

We are aware of the fact that defendant was 17 years old at the time of the murder. However, as we observed in People v. Darnell (1981), 94 Ill. App. 3d 830, 838, 419 N.E.2d 384, quoting People v. West (1977), 54 Ill. App. 3d 903, 909,370 N.E.2d 265, 270, "[d]efendant's youthfulness is not alone sufficient to justify a reduction of sentence. 'The nature of the crime, the protection of the public, deterrence and punishment have equal status in the consideration.'" (See also People v. La Pointe, 88 Ill. 2d 482 (18-year-old defendant was sentenced to natural life imprisonment without parole); People v. Walker (1985), 136 Ill. App. 3d 177, 483 N.E.2d 301 (17-year-old defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment).) In the present case, we believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to life imprisonment.

FindACase 153 09 20 89 the People of the State of v. Christopher Abernathy

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

and this.............

"[State's Attorney]: Again the question comes back as to why did he do it. You know, all of you know now why this man killed Kristina Hickey as he explains to you in only his third and fourth statements, that being the oral statement to Paul Perry and to Carl Kuester and the court-reported confession to those same two people. He did it because she rejected his sexual advances. He wanted to have sex with her. She said no. Well, there are some people in this world, a great many of them, who will go and have sex casually, who will go with anybody, Abernathy and anybody else, and they can come parading in our courtroom and testify. They can do all these things. But certain people don't do that. Certain people are brought up right. Certain people come home at night and don't play hooky. Those people unfortunately sometimes pay with their very lives for their being brought up that way. Sometimes that is demanded of them when somebody demands things from them that they would rather die than give up what that man was trying to take from her, and that is exactly what happened here, ladies and gentlemen, and you hear that in his statements and you can see that in the physical evidence.", Defendant contends that these remarks were references to Kristina Hickey's virginity and were highly inflammatory.

Initially, we note that defendant did not object to these remarks at trial. *fn3 Thus, defendant has waived review of the alleged error. (People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186, 522 N.E.2d 1124, cert. denied (1988), 488 U.S. 917, 109 S. Ct. 274, 102 L. Ed. 2d 263; People v. Surles (1984), 126 Ill. App. 3d 216, 225, 466 N.E.2d 1295.) Moreover, review is not mandated by the plain error doctrine because the evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming, and the alleged error is not so prejudicial that Justice has been denied. People v. Johnson (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 170, 499 N.E.2d 1355, cert. denied (1987), 480 U.S. 951, 94 L. Ed. 2d 802, 107 S. Ct. 1618; People v. Surles, 126 Ill. App. 3d at 225.
___________________
So now they throw out all the "overwhelming evidence" and find that the DNA didn't match! This is a coverup. The guy is guilty. He admitted his guilt. Repeatedly. Look at the case! Look at the record here!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

What about these two testimonies on record?

FindACase 153 09 20 89 the People of the State of v. Christopher Abernathy
Carol Dorsett, a staff photographer for Star Newspapers, was assigned to do a story on Kristina's funeral. Ms. Dorsett testified that on October 9, 1984, defendant approached her outside the funeral home and told her that he had dated Kristina, that he loved Kristina and that he would have done anything for Kristina.

During the conversation, Ms. Dorsett noticed that defendant had scratches on his nose and lip. Defendant told her that he was injured when he ran into a tree.

Defendant then told her that he had an M-16 in the trunk of his car and that he would fire the weapon at the funeral. Ms. Dorsett talked to a co-worker about defendant's threat and the co-worker called the police. Police officers then searched defendant and defendant's car but did not recover any weapon.
_________________
Where did he get the scratches on his nose and lip? He tells her from an accident. This is right after the rape and murder of Kristina! More evidence that is now being thrown out the window..........

and this:

Gerald E. Gordon, an employee of the Department of Public Works for the Village of Park Forest, testified that on October 10, 1984, he was cutting the grass on the ditch banks in an area near the location where Kristina's body was discovered, when he found Kristina's social security card and a brown wallet containing other identification cards.

Mr. Gordon directed police officer Francis DioGuardi to the location where he discovered the social security card and wallet. Officer DioGuardi conducted a search of the area and found several cosmetic articles, shredded pieces of an address book, shredded pieces of a grey corduroy purse, a slip and some miscellaneous articles. The purse had been shredded by the mowing machine.

Alan Dennis testified that he has known defendant since 1983. In the summer of 1985, he asked defendant if he was responsible for Kristina's death. Defendant answered yes and started crying. Mr. Dennis testified that he did not contact the police regarding defendant's admission. However, on November 21, 1985, Detective Kuester talked with him regarding Kristina's death and he told the detective about defendant's admission.
___________________
Interesting how they claim this man has now recanted his testimony. I'm not buying it. They have just released a cold blooded murderer.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

These stories are always troubling. But even back then you could demand legal representation and admitting to guilt when innocent is never a good thing. How could anyone not know that?

He's guilty. Look at the case. Look at the evidence and the testimonies - even of a staff photographer he spoke to - she worked for the newspapers and was an eyewitness to the scratches on his nose and lip - fresh - after the murder of this girl. He then tells her he has an M-16 in his trunk and will use it on the funeral home. Another man - a friend of the defendant - reports that he asked Abernathy - did you kill her? Abernathy broke down and wept admitting - yes, he did.

His friend didn't work for the legal system. It was an open confession. Read the case - the evidence is overwhelming - he even admitted to the end he killed her but it was "accidental". 30 yrs later? He's not even there! Wrong guy! Wrong DNA! Its a big cover up. He is guilty alright.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Sounds like they need to lock the a-hole back up and throw away the key.
Or better yet hang his ass.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, he's not...do you or do you not understand the concept of: "DNA testing last August excluded him from the case." He CANNOT be guilty.

 

[justiceprevails]

DNA and the State's star witness recanted his story stating he made a deal with the State and was bribed to testify. Christopher had no knowledge of the crime which shows in his so called confession, no evidence was found connecting him to this crime long before the DNA was tested, no hair, blood, skin, fibers, nothing! And by the way, Allen Dennis was in no way a friend of Abernathy's.

 

[Esmeralda]

IMO there are two things to consider in these cases. One is the potential for executing innocent men, as well as keeping innocent men in prison for decades. The other is that the real killer is not being punished for the crime. That is so very wrong. And innocent man paying for the crime of another.