244 N.E.2d 173 (Ill. 1969), 41452, People v. Palmer

Docket Nº:41452.
Citation:244 N.E.2d 173, 41 Ill.2d 571
Party Name:The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Edwin PALMER, Appellant.
Case Date:January 29, 1969
Court:Supreme Court of Illinois
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 173

244 N.E.2d 173 (Ill. 1969)

41 Ill.2d 571

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

v.

Edwin PALMER, Appellant.

No. 41452.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January 29, 1969.

Page 174

Thomas J. Bauch, Chicago, appointed by the court, for appellant.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and John J. Stamos, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Michael Stevenson, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for appellee.

KLINGBIEL, Justice.

[41 Ill.2d 572] The defendant, Edwin Palmer, was tried by the court without a jury in the circuit court of Cook County and convicted of armed robbery for which he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than three years. He has appealed directly to this court, a constitutional question being involved.

On appeal, the only claim advanced by the defendant is that the trial court should not have permitted the courtroom identification of the defendant by the victim because the identification was allegedly the product of a pretrial confrontation between the defendant and the victim in the absence of the defendant's counsel. Defendant's argument is based upon United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178. Each of those cases involved a lineup proceeding which was conducted after the defendant had been indicted and after counsel had been appointed for him. In each case the defendant's attorney was not notified of the lineup and was not present. The Supreme Court held that the lineup was a critical stage of the proceedings and that defendant was entitled to the presence of counsel. In our opinion these 'lineup' decisions apply only to post-indictment confrontations. We reach this decision because of the language of the United States Supreme Court in these cases and in the subsequent case of Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247. In Wade, the court stated that the question was 'whether courtroom identifications of an accused at trial are to be excluded from evidence because the accused was exhibited to the witnesses before trial at a post-indictment lineup conducted for identification purposes without notice to and in the absence of the accused's appointed counsel.' (388 U.S. at 219, 87 S.ct. at 1928, 18 L.ed.2d at 1153.) in gilbert the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP