People v. Cuttley

• Decision Date: 17 April 1967
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 51101
• Citation: 226 N.E.2d 479,82 Ill.App.2d 321
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivory CUTTLEY, (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 479

226 N.E.2d 479

82 Ill.App.2d 321

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivory CUTTLEY, (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 51101.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

April 17, 1967.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, Frederick F. Cohn, James J. Doherty, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel, for appellant.

Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., County of Cook Elmer C. Kissane, Morton Friedman, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel, for appellee.

MURPHY, Presiding Justice.

A jury found defendant guilty of robbery, and he was sentenced to 4 to 12 years. On appeal, he contends he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and his constitutional rights were violated when the State was allowed to present to the jury evidence of defendant's prior convictions.

On April 26, 1965, at 1:30 A.M., Robert Lea, a cab driver, was robbed by two men. Shortly thereafter, while at a police station, he identified defendant as one of the robbers, and later identified defendant in a line-up. The cab driver and a police officer testified that defendant admitted his guilt. Defendant denied the robbery or any admissions.

At the trial, Lea, the cab driver, identified defendant in the courtroom. Lea testified that defendant and Hosea Johnson entered his cab, and after being driven around, they robbed him of $41. Defendant Cuttley 'put a knife on my neck * * * the blade was open.' After the robbery, Lea jumped out of the cab, and 'Cuttley was chasing me. I was getting a little distance between us so I snatched a picket off a fence * * * and I turned on him and he turned and they ran through an alley, between Lawndale and Ridgeway.' He lost sight of them and reported the matter to a passing police car.

Later that morning, and at a police station, defendant Cuttley was brought in, and Lea said, 'That's the guy right there that stuck me up.' While in the presence of the arresting officers, defendant Cuttley asked Lea for a cigarette and Lea gave him a whole package, and 'I told him that if he had asked me for some money I would have given him some money. That he didn't have to stick me up. He said, 'Well, I didn't hurt you, did I,' and that's all he said, that's all I heard him say.' Later, at 11th and State Street, Lea saw Cuttley and Johnson in a line-up. This was the first time he saw Johnson after the robbery. Present were Officers Alford and Morley, and 'Cuttley was accusing Johnson of having the knife and Johnson was accusing Cuttley of having the knife. I can't remember the exact words of the conversation.'

James Alford, a police officer, testified for the State and identified Cuttley and substantially corroborated Lea's testimony as to the happening at the police station. He heard Lea ask, "Why did you rob me?' He said, 'If you wanted some money why didn't you ask for it.' He said, 'I know what it is like not to have any money, and I would have given you some money had you asked for it. And at that time the defendant asked Mr. Lea for a cigarette and Mr. Lea gave him a pack of cigarettes and then the defendant said, 'Well, I didn't hurt you, did I?"

Officer Alford further testified that he had arrested Hosea Johnson on information given him by Cuttley, and at 11th and State Cuttley and Johnson accused each other of having or holding the knife. After Lea left the police station, and in the presence of Detective Morley and Johnson, Officer Alford asked Cuttley why he committed the robbery, and 'he stated that he wanted to get some money to purchase an automobile.'

On cross-examination, Officer Alford stated that he did not get a written statement from Cuttley, and 'I never wrote down any of the admissions he made.'

Defendant Cuttley testified and denied the robbery or any admissions. He was arrested by Officer Alford and interrogated about a shotgun. He was taken to the police station, where he saw Lea, the cab driver, who said nothing. Later Cuttley asked Alford for a cigarette, and the cab driver gave him a package and said, "I am giving you this package because you robbed me.' I said, 'I didn't rob you, mister, you know.' So he said, 'You put a knife on me.' I didn't know what he was talking about. I accepted the pack of cigarettes from him. I really did. I never said to him, 'I didn't hurt you, did I?" Cuttley denied saying to Officer Alford that he would 'beat this case in court,' and on cross-examination said, '(H)e was asking me did I rob him and I told him no, I did not rob him. So the detective told me, he said, 'If you did rob him,' he said, 'You should have robbed him,' and I asked him why. * * * that is when he said, 'I will see to it that you get ten years."

In rebuttal, Robert Lea and James Alford testified that Alford never told defendant he was going to get ten years. Officer Thomas Morley also testified in rebuttal that 'I was present at 1121 South State Street at a lineup. I had never heard the detective tell the defendant that he should have done the robbery anyway because he was going to get ten years anyway.'

Defendant's first contention is that during the trial, oral confessions were admitted in violation of section 114--10 (Ill.Rev.Stat., Ch. 38), and except for the improperly admitted evidence, the State's case was based on a single identification, which was inherently weak.

The record shows that on December 13, 1965, after prospective jurors were sworn for examination upon their Voir dire and placed in the jury box, the court recessed further questioning of the jury until 2:00 P.M. of the same day. At two o'clock, and before the questioning of the prospective jurors was resumed, the State asked leave 'to amend its list of witnesses of those persons present at the time of an oral statement by the defendant, Ivory Cuttley, and the defendant, Hosea Johnson,' and stated to the court, 'Prior to trial counsel for the defense moved for a list of witnesses and also for the list of persons present at the time of written and oral statements. At that time we advised the defense in writing of the witnesses to be called at the trial. We advised the defense that there was no written statement by either defendant in this indictment, and we advised the defense as to both defendants Mr. Robert Lea and Detective James Alford were present at the time of oral statements. * * * and it just came to our attention over the noon recess that Detective Morley was present at the time of oral statements to Mr. Lea and Detective Alford. And we had no knowledge of this fact until about half an hour ago, and we will have Detective Morley available at this time, any time today or tomorrow morning for the defense, if they wish, to interview him. We ask at this time before the trial is commenced to amend the list to include his name.'

Counsel for the defendant objected to the amendment. The court allowed the motion and offered defense counsel any time necessary to interview the person added. After discussion, the court offered to allow a motion for mistrial if counsel for defendant made it. Another recess was taken, after which counsel for defendant stated: 'Let the record show I have spoken to Detective Morley and I still object to the inclusion of his name, but we are ready to proceed.' The...