People v. Davis
| Decision Date | 23 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 38955,38955 |
| Citation | 35 Ill.2d 202,220 N.E.2d 222 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Arthur Logan DAVIS, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
John R. Tripp, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Stuart P. Shapiro, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.
The defendant, Arthur Logan Davis, was tried by jury in the criminal court of Cook County and convicted of the crime of armed robbery for which he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than ten nor more than fifteen years. We issued a writ of error to review the judgment of conviction.
The defendant's principal contention is that the trial court erred in ruling that his confession was voluntary. At the hearing on the admissibility of the confession the defendant testified substantially as follows. He was arrested on the night of January 2, 1963, taken to the home of a friend where the police searched an apartment, and then taken to his home where a search was also conducted. He was then taken to a Chicago police station where he was briefly questioned about the robbery. He told the police he didn't know anything about the crime and asked to call a lawyer but was told that he could not do so. He was then taken from the Chicago police station to a police station in Chicago Heights, where he arrived early on the morning of January 3. He was questioned on the way to the station and questioned briefly after his arrival there. He again requested permission to call 'somebody' but his request was refused. A police officer grabbed his arm and hit him in the stomach a couple of times and placed him in a cell where he remained until about 2 or 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the 3rd, when he was removed to the women's quarters of the police station. He was the only person confined in those quarters. Sometime after midnight, early in the morning of January 4, he was taken to the detective room where he was again questioned. An officer hit him in the mouth with his fist and two officers hit him on his body with clubs. After he had been beaten he told the officers that he would tell them anything if they would leave him alone and told them that some bonds which had been stolen were hidden in the village of Harvey. The officers took him there to search for the bonds, but they were not found. He also told the officers the names of two other persons who were supposedly involved in the robbery, but the officers were unable to find these two men. He testified that he did not know the location of the bonds or the names of any persons involved in the robbery and only gave the officers this information so that the beatings would cease. On the afternoon of January 4, he gave a statement to the police which was taken down in shorthand by a police reporter. The statement was later transcribed but the defendant refused to sign it. The defendant was not taken before a magistrate until January 9, and at that time he was then transferred to the Cook County jail.
Upon his arrival at the county jail he complained of soreness in his arms and chest and said that he had been beaten by the police. This testimony was corroborated by an official record of the jail showing such a complaint. He was examined by a physician who testified at the hearing that he found bruises on the defendant's chest and arm and that in his opinion these injuries were due to trauma. The doctor testified that the defendant did not complain of any other injuries and he found no other injuries. The doctor said that he 'suspected it' and ordered an X ray of the ribs to determine if there was any fracture. The X ray was negative. He also testified that a bruised skin with redness and swelling could disappear a few hours after the injuries were inflicted. The doctor made a notation on the defendant's record that the defendant was suffering from pain in the midchest due to trauma and that he found a small hematoma of the left arm, and his diagnosis was 'bruises of soft tissue, chest and arm'.
Two prisoners who were confined in the men's lock-up in the Chicago Heights jail while the defendant was being questioned testified that they heard screams of pain during this period through the ventilating system of the jail. These prisoners also testified that they saw police officers leading the defendant from the women's lock-up to the detective room and that he was doubled over and holding his stomach. A woman friend of the defendant saw him at the Chicago Heights jail on January 7, and stated that his arm, chest and stomach were discolored.
All of the officers who were alleged to have mistreated the defendant testified that neither they nor anyone in their prescence beat or otherwise abused the defendant. They denied that the defendant had requested permission to call a lawyer. These officers testified that the defendant voluntarily confessed after his brother-in-law appeared at the station in the early morning of January 4, and told the defendant that he was lying and that he might as well tell the truth. They also testified that it was impossible for prisoners in the men's lock-up to see the defendant in the hall. The brother-in-law confirmed this conversation and said that at the time he saw the defendant he noticed no signs of injury. The stenographer who took the defendant's statement testified that she observed no signs of injury at that time and the victim of the robbery, who saw the defendant on the evening of January 4, testified that he observed no signs of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wilson
...by clear and convincing evidence, that the injuries were not inflicted as a means of producing the confession. (People v. Davis (1966), 35 Ill.2d 202, 206, 220 N.E.2d 222; People v. La Frana (1954), 4 Ill.2d 261, 267, 122 N.E.2d 583; People v. Thomlison (1948), 400 Ill. 555, 561-62, 81 N.E.......
-
People v. Sanders
...Courts frame the legal inquiry usually through asking whether the defendant's confession was voluntary. Id. ; People v. Davis , 35 Ill. 2d 202, 205, 220 N.E.2d 222 (1966) ("The constitutional test for the admission of a confession in evidence is whether the confession was made freely, volun......
-
People v. Salamon
..., 530 U.S. 428, 434, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) ); see Miller , 474 U.S. at 109-10, 106 S.Ct. 445 ; People v. Davis , 35 Ill. 2d 202, 205, 220 N.E.2d 222 (1966). ¶ 77 In Miranda , 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, the United States Supreme Court held that the admission of statemen......
-
People v. Lewis
...confession is whether the confession was made freely, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement of any sort. (People v. Davis (1966), 35 Ill.2d 202, 220 N.E.2d 222.) The test for voluntariness is whether the defendant's will was overborne at the time he made a statement. (Lynumn v. I......