People v. Coleman, 56935
| Decision Date | 29 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 56935,56935 |
| Citation | 9 Ill.App.3d 402,292 N.E.2d 483 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marshall T. COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Page 483
v.
Marshall T. COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
[9 Ill.App.3d 404]
Page 484
Katz, Hirsch & Wise, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Elmer C. Kissane, Robin K. Auld, Peter Costa, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.
LORENZ, Presiding Justice.
Defendant Marshall T. Coleman was indicted on a charge of armed robbery pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, sec. 18--2. A jury found defendant guilty and the court sentenced him to a term of three to five years. Defendant now appeals contending: (1) that the trial court erred by allowing testimony of other crimes to be presented at trial, and (2) that he was not represented by counsel of his own choice.
The following facts are relevant to defendant's first contention. During defense counsel's cross-examination of the investigating police officer the following colloquy occurred:
Q. You read this report (of the Gang Intelligence division regarding the circumstances of the impounding of defendant's automobile)?
Page 485
A. Yes.
Q. What did it say?
A. That they were looking for one Marshall T. Coleman and for conspiracy, and I believe it was a battery.
They had information that he is, he worked for the Chicago Park District. They went to this address and there they seen--
Later, the prosecutor asked the same witness the following question on re-direct examination.
MR. SCHREIER: I do have another question with respect to theNovember 23rd occasion, when Mr. Coleman was arrested and his car impounded, you mentioned that the police were looking for him for conspiracy, battery, is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Defense counsel objected to this question on grounds of hearsay but was overruled by the court which said that such evidence had been brought out by the defense. The prosecutor then asked:
MR. SCHREIER: To refresh your recollection, was there also an intimidation charge?
A. Intimidation.
[9 Ill.App.3d 405] Defense counsel also objected to this question but stated no grounds. The court overruled the objection but no further questions were asked. The prosecutor made no mention of defendant's other charges during his closing argument.
The following facts are relevant to defendant's second contention that he was not represented by counsel of his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Seider
... ... (People v. Belvedere (1979), 72 Ill.App.3d 998, 28 Ill.Dec. 649, 390 N.E.2d 1239; People v. Coleman (1972), 9 Ill.App.3d 402, 292 N.E.2d 483.) This exclusionary rule that it is improper to cross-examine a defendant as to a prior conviction does not ... ...
-
People v. Belvedere
... ... (People v. Coleman (1972), 9 Ill.App.3d 402, 292 N.E.2d 483.) Where the testimony has no value beyond that inference, it is excluded. But where evidence is ... ...
-
People v. Colon
... ... Malek in court and treated him as his lawyer. Therefore, in his trial, defendant was represented by counsel of his choice. People v. Coleman, 9 Ill.App.3d 402, 292 N.E.2d 483; People v. Novotny, 41 Ill.2d 401, 244 N.E.2d 182; compare People v. Sailor, 43 Ill.2d 256, 253 N.E.2d 397 ... ...
-
People v. Crowder
... ... See People v. Coleman" (1972), 9 Ill.App.3d 402, 292 N.E.2d 483 ... \xC2" ... ...