People v. Harris
| Decision Date | 19 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 36879,36879 |
| Citation | 33 Ill.2d 389,211 N.E.2d 693 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error. v. Charles W. HARRIS, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Jay L. Horberg, 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, Charles W. Harris, was charged with armed robbery and tried by the court without a jury, found guilty, and sentenced for a term of not less than five nor more than fifteen years in the penitentiary. Defendant prosecutes this writ of error to review his judgment of conviction, contending that the evidence introduced against him was the result of an unlawful search and seizure.
Defendant was arrested on March 6, 1961, at the home of his mother, by two police officers who were in the course of investigating robberies of several retail establishments. The police arrested the defendant and went to his room to permit him to change to street clothes, and at that time a search of the immediate area was made and police found a wallet.
The defendant was then taken to the police station and was identified by Marion Miketinac and her sister, Grace Cikinek, as the man who had accosted them on December 2, 1960, and had stolen Marion Miketinac's purse. They also identified the wallet found in defendant's room as belonging to Marion Miketinac and being in her purse at the time of the armed robbery.
At the trial defendant urged a lack of proper identification of the defendant and claimed that he found the wallet on a C.T.A. bus. On this appeal, however, his sole argument is that the wallet in question was obtained by an illegal search and seizure pursuant to an illegal arrest. Despite the inadequate abstract filed, we have carefully examined the entire reord and find that neither the defendant nor his counsel had at any time moved to suppress the evidence in question. We also find a complete lack of any objection to the admission of this evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained or on any other specific ground.
Defendant's post-trial motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment are also devoid of any reference to the impropriety of the admission of this evidence. On this appeal much of defendant's argument is devoted to the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Speed
...where it is not raised before the trial court (People v. Johnson, 38 Ill.2d 399, 402, 231 N.E.2d 447 (1967); People v. Harris, 33 Ill.2d 389, 390, 211 N.E.2d 693 (1965).) The plain error rule (73 Ill.2d R. 615(a)) does not require a reviewing court to consider all errors involving constitut......
-
People v. Somerville
...any of the appeals, we must agree with the State that such claim is untimely made in this post-conviction proceeding. People v. Harris, 33 Ill.2d 389, 390, 211 N.E.2d 693; People v. Brengettsy, 25 Ill.2d 228, 232, 184 N.E.2d Under our view of the numerous legal issues presented in this caus......
-
People v. Ostrand
...on appeal. People v. Milani, 34 Ill.2d 524, 527, 216 N.E.2d 816; People v. French, 33 Ill.2d 146, 149, 210 N.E.2d 540; People v. Harris, 33 Ill.2d 389, 390, 211 N.E.2d 693. Defendant questions the admissibility of the testimony of Donald Evans concerning the telephone conversation. Evans te......
-
People v. Johnson
...illegal search and seizure will not be considered on appeal where the issue sue has not been raised in the trial court. (People v. Harris, 33 Ill.2d 389, 211 N.E.2d 693, cert. denied, 383 U.S. 971, 86 S.Ct. 1282, 16 N.Ed.2d 311.) Such rule of waiver is followed where it is first sought on a......