People v. Schwartz
| Decision Date | 23 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 33180,33180 |
| Citation | 3 Ill.2d 520,121 N.E.2d 758 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Thomas Frederick SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Gerald T. Wiley, Chicago (Charles D. Snewind, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and John Gutknecht, State's Atty., Chicago (John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega and Arthur F. Manning, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
The grand jury of Cook County for the January term, 1952, returned four indictments against the plaintiff in error, Thomas Frederick Schwartz, hereinafter referred to as defendant, then 16 years of age, charging him with burglary, assault with intent to commit murder, robbery and rape. He entered pleas of guilty to the first three named offenses and was sentenced, respectively, to terms of twenty years, ten to fourteen years, and ten years to life. He pleaded not guilty to the charge of rape, waived jury trial, was tried and convicted by the court and sentenced to seventy-five years' imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Defendant comes to this court by writ of error to review only his trial, conviction and sentence on the rape charge.
Since this conviction must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, we refrain from reciting and commenting upon the evidence or alleged errors which we assume will not recur in a new trial, and shall confine this opinion to the specific prejudicial and reversible error.
The State introduced into evidence at defendant's trial before the court a written statement, consisting of questions asked by an assistant State's Attorney and answers given by the defendant. This statement was taken in the police station, while defendant was in custody, in the presence of the asisstant State's Attorney, four police officers, a probation officer and a short-hand reporter. The only proof offered by the State in regard to this statement was one question directed to the complaining witness and her answer: Question-'Were you present at the time that I asked the defendant certain questions?' Answer-'Well there was some questions but I don't know if I was there at all times that you have asked all the questions.' Defendant's counsel then examined the written statement and stated: 'I will stipulate with you that these questions were asked and that he made these answers.' The statement was thereupon offered and admitted in evidence without objection by defendant's counsel.
The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted the assault upon the prosecutrix but denied penetration and emission. He admitted that he made the answers contained in the statement admitting penetration and emission but stated that he did not know what he was answering because he did not understand the terms used, and because 'he was throwing the questions too fast at me and he got me all confused.' He further testified that the police captain who induced him to make the confession promised him leniency and promised to help him realize his ambition to join the Navy, stating 'We'll go easy on you, if you tell everything you know, and promise you the service.' An objection by the assistant State's Attorney to all this testimony was sustained by the court and on motion it was stricken from the record. This we regard as prejudicial and reversible error.
It is elementary that extrajudicial confessions, such as we have here, are competent evidence, as an exception to the hearsay rule, only when they are voluntarily and understandingly made. Although they are hearsay, they are considered reliable because the law presumes that no rational person would make admissions against his interest unless urged to do so by the promptings of his conscience to tell the truth,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Townsend v. Sain
...of voluntariness, because it bears on the issue of credibility, may also be presented to the jury. See, e.g., People v. Schwartz, 3 Ill.2d 520, 523, 121 N.E.2d 758, 760; People v. Roach, 369 Ill. 95, 15 N.E.2d 873. The jury found petitioner guilty and affixed the death penalty to its verdic......
-
State v. Davis
...Procedure, Section 22.1(h), 36 (3d Ed.2007). See, e.g., United States v. Groth, 682 F.2d 578, 580 (6th Cir.1982); People v. Schwartz, 3 Ill.2d 520, 524, 121 N.E.2d 758 (1954). {¶ 34} In the cases cited above, a conviction was either reversed on appeal or was set aside, necessitating a retri......
-
People v. Vinson
...credibility and weight to be given a confession though the court has found it voluntary and admitted it into evidence. (People v. Schwartz, 3 Ill.2d 520, 121 N.E.2d 758; People v. Scott, 28 Ill.2d 131, 190 N.E.2d 749.) Defendant asserts that his attempts to place before the jury evidence of......
-
People v. Wagoner
... ... If the confession is ruled to be competent, and admitted in evidence, the defendants still has the right to present his evidence before the jury on questions of credibility or the weight to be given the confession. People v. Schwartz, 3 Ill.2d 520, 121 N.E.2d 758; People v. Roach, 369 Ill. 95, 15 N.E.2d 873; People v. Cleaver, 365 Ill. 93, 5 N.E.2d 463 ... [8 Ill.2d 198] The record shows that assistant State's Attorney Austin, court reporter Harvey, officers Golden, Ascher, Clark, Allan, Ponicki, Tyndall and ... ...