People v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 01 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 56311,56311 |
| Citation | 10 Ill.App.3d 593,295 N.E.2d 120 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Booker HANSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Thomas J. Grippando, and Charles R. Staley, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
Edward V. Hanrahan and Elmer C. Kissane, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.
Booker Hanson was found guilty of theft (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1969, ch. 38, para. 16--1(a)) and sentenced to jail for the term of six months. The evidence presented by the State at the non-jury trial consisted of the testimony of George Scanlon, the complainant, and a Chicago police officer. Hanson denied participation in the offense and claimed he was at home watching television; his mother corroborated his whereabouts.
Of the points raised on appeal, one is decisive: the contention that reversible error was committed when a police officer was permitted to testify, in contradiction to Scanlon, that Scanlon identified Hanson from a photograph as one of his three assailants.
Hanson, Robert Walton and David Blackwell were charged with stealing Scanlon's money and were tried together. At a pre-trial hearing on a motion to suppress identification, Scanlon testified that he was called to a police station to view suspects. As he stood in a hallway, Hanson, Walton and Blackwell were brought before him individually. He said that he was not sure of Walton and Blackwell but was of Hanson. The court reserved its ruling on the motion. At the trial the 60-year-old victim testified that he was employed by a liquor store and was depositing some trash in an alley container around 12:30 A.M. As he opened the lid, someone approached him from behind, twisted his arm and covered his face. He was thrown to the ground and one of three assailants took a key case and $12 from his pockets. He 'got a look' from the distance of two and a half feet at the person who was holding him and he identified Hanson as that assailant. The other two men were not seen face to face; Scanlon's opportunities for viewing them were limited to his observations as they fled down the alley. However, he described them as being heavier than himself, about five feet nine inches in height and having the same physical characteristics. He estimated the commission of the offense took one minute or a little longer. There was no testimony about the lighting conditions.
On cross-examination, Hanson's counsel asked Scanlon about the police station identification:
Q. You never saw this man, is that correct, before you were in the police station?
A. Oh, they had pictures of them.
Q. Police had photographs?
A. Yes.
Q. How many photographs?
A. There is two cards, one on each card.
Q. There were four photographs all together?
A. Two cards.
Q. How many of those did you identify?
A. Well, I picked the two out.
Q. Two out of four. All right, . . .
On redirect examination the State pursued the subject and Scanlon pointed to Walton and Blackwell as the men whose pictures he picked out.
The arresting officer related the details concerning the police procedures. He testified that he showed Scanlon approximately seven pictures and the victim identified those of Hanson and Walton. On cross-examination the officer admitted that he showed the three defendants to Scanlon one at a time. He denied asking, 'Is this the man who did it?' when Scanlon was confronted with each defendant.
The State rested its case and, pursuant to a motion for a directed finding, the court dismissed the charges against Walton and Blackwell. The motion was overruled in respect to Hanson, who thereupon presented evidence concerning his alibi.
Hanson's conviction rests upon his identification by a single witness who saw him fleetingly in the middle of the night in an alley. There was no evidence concerning the alley's illumination. Under these circumstances, where the possibility of a mistaken identification was so serious, it was very important that the witness' identification be uninfluenced by post-arrest procedures and that the defendant's trial be free of error.
There was no excuse for the one-on-one confrontation in this case and there was no justification for the officer's testimony that Scanlon selected Hanson's picture as one of the thieves. Testimony of this kind has been condemned repeatedly. In People v. Smith (1969), 105 Ill.App.2d 8, 245 N.E.2d 23, it was held to be one of the two errors which deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The prosecuting witness testified that after she was robbed the police showed her some pictures. An officer testified that she picked out a picture of the defendant. This court stated: 'His testimony went far beyond hers and obviously was offered to strengthen the identification and to prove the truth of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Craig
...he viewed on that night. He did not testify that he made an identification from a photo of a lineup. Thus, People v. Hanson (1st Dist. 1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 593, 595, 295 N.E.2d 120, and People v. Smith (1st Dist. 1969), 105 Ill.App.2d 8, 245 N.E.2d 23, cited by defendants Lewis and Taylor, ......
-
People v. Smith
...which are so prejudicial as to clearly deny defendant a fair trial (People v. Mays, 48 Ill.2d 164, 269 N.E.2d 281; People v. Hanson, 10 Ill.App.3d 593, 295 N.E.2d 120), or where, by reason of counsel's failure to object, the defendant contends that his appointed counsel was incompetent (Peo......
- Morfeld v. Andrews
-
People v. Macklin
...to a fair trial. (People v. Mays, 48 Ill.2d 164, 269 N.E.2d 281; People v. Smith, 21 Ill.App.3d 366, 316 N.E.2d 170; People v. Hanson, 10 Ill.App.3d 593, 295 N.E.2d 120.) When the errors here complained of are considered in conjunction with the entire record presented to us on appeal, we ca......