People v. Green
| Decision Date | 27 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 36261,36261 |
| Citation | 192 N.E.2d 398,28 Ill.2d 286 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Willie D. GREEN, Plaintiff in Error |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Francis A. Heroux, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
The defendant, Willie D. Green, was indicted for the crime of attempted burglary. He was tried before the court without a jury, found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for a minimum of two years and a maximum of four years. On this appeal the defendant contends: (1) that an inadequate foundation was laid for the admission into evidence concerning an examination of certain gloves allegedly taken from the defendant at the scene of the crime; (2) that the microanalyst who testified at the trial possessed inadequate qualifications to be competent as an expert witness; and (3) that the defendant was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Alvin Whitehead testified that on November 20, 1959, at 4:00 o'clock P.M. Pop's Liquors, Inc., that he managed, was closed, the doors locked, the A.D.T. alarm system set and, after the system was checked and a signal from same received back, he, the porter and the bartender left the premises He stated that at 1:30 A.M. on November 21 he returned and found an A.D.T. officer in front of the store. They entered the store and found 'the wooden and wire grill work on the window broken, the glass of the door broken * * *'. This witness testified that the banister on the outside basement stairs was painted black, although he also stated that he had 'no occasion to spend time in the back of the building.'
A police officer, Lawrence Cusack, testified that about 1:30 A.M. he arrived at the store and upon checking the area behind the store, which he testified was very dark, found the defendant in a stair well leading down to the basement, the banister of which he also stated was painted black. The defendant told Cusack that he went behind the liquor store because he needed to relieve himself and pointed out to the police officer where he had so relieved himself. Upon investigating this location the officer found found a 'stool' which he described as 'all dried up'. The officer testified that when he first noticed the defendant he was trying to put a pair of brown gloves into his pocket which gloves the officer took from the defendant. Cusack then observed that the bars on the rear window of the liquor store, which he stated were painted a rust color, were bent and the inner portion of the glass broken.
The officer testified that he noticed rust colored stains on the defendant's gloves which, along with some paint scrapings from the window bars, were taken to the station. There Cusack inventoried these items and 'sent' them to the crime laboratory, by what method the record does not disclose.
A microanalyst from the crime laboratory, Claude B. Hazen, testified that he had attended various universites and had studied and later lectured on the subject of forensic microanalysis, including the identification of paint and glass, and had, conservatively, made over two thousand prior analyses similar to the one involved in this case. Clearly Hazen had the necessary experience, special learning, training and knowledge to qualify as an expert witness on the subject of forensic microanalysis. (People v. Fiorita, 339 Ill. 78, 170 N.E. 690). He testified that on November 21, 1959, he received a pair of gloves that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Park
...by engaging in identification of guns for several months where he had no other experience or education; but in People v. Green (1963), 28 Ill.2d 286, 288, 192 N.E.2d 398, a microanalysis expert was qualified by his college education, extensive study in the field, and over 2,000 prior analys......
-
People v. Bey
...absence of a chemical analysis affects only the probative value, and not the admissibility of this expert testimony. See People v. Green, 28 Ill.2d 286, 192 N.E.2d 398; People v. Jennings, 252 Ill. 534, 549--552, 96 N.E. 1077, 43 L.R.A.,N.S., Also urged as error is defendant's contention th......
-
Baggett v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co.
...was prejudiced by this testimony. The defendant cites the cases of People v. Fiorita, 339 Ill. 78, 170 N.E. 690, and People v. Green, 28 Ill.2d 286, 192 N.E.2d 398, in support of his position. We find these criminal cases, dealing with the subject of the necessary qualifications of an exper......
-
People v. Nelson
...value and not the admissibility of this expert testimony. People v. Bey, 42 Ill.2d 139, 246 N.E.2d 287. See also People v. Green, 28 Ill.2d 286, 192 N.E.2d 398, and 28 Ill.2d 286, 192 N.E.2d 398, and People v. Jennings, 252 Ill. 534, 96 N.E. We believe that the scientific evidence was prope......