People v. Hartgraves
| Decision Date | 29 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 38098,38098 |
| Citation | 202 N.E.2d 33,31 Ill.2d 375 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert HARTGRAVES, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Page 33
v.
Robert HARTGRAVES, Plaintiff in Error.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 23, 1964.
[31 Ill.2d 376] Julius Lucius Echeles, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O'Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and William J. Nellis, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.
SOLFISBURG, Justice.
Defendant Robert Hartgraves was tried in the criminal court of Cook County before a jury, found guilty of arson, and sentenced
Page 34
to the pentientiary for a term of not less than four nor more than eight years. He prosecutes this writ of error to review his conviction. The defendant contends that he was wrongfully denied the right to inspect upon demand the police report of a prosecution witness, and that a confession was obtained by constitutionally impermissible means.A verified petition of the defendant to suppress a confession was filed in advance of the trial and a hearing was held thereon. Officer John Weiss, one of the witnesses who [31 Ill.2d 377] testified for the State in opposition to the motion to suppress, admitted on cross-examination that he had read over a statement or report before testifying to refresh his memory. At this point the attorney for the defendant made a demand to inspect the report. The State did not immediately produce the report, but the following day presented to the court the field report referred to by officer Weiss. The trial court examined the report and denied the defendant the right to inspect the report under the authority of People v. Moses, 11 Ill.2d 84, 142 N.E.2d 1 and People v. Wolff, 19 Ill.2d 318, 167 N.E.2d 197. The defendant, relying on the same cases, contends that the trial judge erred in denying the defense the right to inspect the police report.
In the case of People v. Wolff, 19 Ill.2d 318, 167 N.E.2d 197, this court held that where no privilege exists and where the relevance and competency of a statement or report have been established, the trial judge shall order the document delivered directly to the accused for his inspection and use for impeachment purposes. However, if the prosecution claims that any document ordered to be produced is not relevant to the testimony sought to be impeached, the trial judge will inspect the document and may, at his discretion delete unrelated matters before delivery is made to the accused. This presupposes that if the document does not relate to the testimony given by the witness, the entire document may be excluded. It is quite apparent that the trial court followed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. State
... ... He told Duncan that there was a two-way mirror in the room, but he did not tell him that the effect of that mirror was to permit people from the outside to see and observe what was going on in the polygraph room without themselves being seen. He did not tell Duncan that a permanent ... See State v. Winsett (Del.Super.Ct.), 205 A.2d 510; State v. Fox (Iowa), 131 N.W.2d 684; People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill.2d 375, 202 N.E.2d 33; Mefford v. State, 235 Md. 497, 201 A.2d 824; State v. Howard (Sup.Ct. of Mo.), 383 S.W.2d 701; State v. Smith, 43 N.J ... ...
-
State v. Myers
... ... He relies upon Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, and the cases therein cited; People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361; State v. Neely, 239 Or. 487, 395 P.2d 557, 398 P.2d 482; United States ex rel. Russo v ... Also see People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill.2d 375, 202 N.E.2d 33; State v. Scanlon, 84 N.J.Super. 427, 202 A.2d 448; People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 205 N.E.2d 852; ... ...
-
Michaud v. State
... ... We find the subject excellently summarized by Mr. Justice Traynor in People v. Atchley (1959), 53 Cal.2d 160, 169, 170, 346 P.2d 764, 768, 769: ... 'There has been considerable confusion as to the admissibility in a ... People v. Hartgraves (1964), 31 Ill.2d 375, 202 N.E.2d 33; People v. Lewis, (1965) 32 Ill.2d 391, 207 N.E.2d 65; People v. Richardson (1965), 32 Ill.2d 472, 207 N.E.2d ... ...
-
People v. Dorado
... ... We should not take an unrealistic view of the rules of law and make it more difficult to apprehend [62 Cal.2d 363] criminals and to prevent and reduce the increase of crime which has taken place at an alarming rate in the past year ... In People v. Hartgraves, 202 N.E.2d 33, the Supreme Court of Illinois, in discussing Escobedo v. State of Illinois, at page 36 said: 'We do not, however, read the Escobedo case as requiring the rejection of a voluntary confession because the State did not affirmatively caution the accused of his right to have an attorney ... ...
-
Democratic restraints upon the police.
...P.2d 482 (1965). Other state appellate courts, despite Escobedo, have continued to follow their earlier precedents: People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill. 2d 375, 202 N.E. 2d 33 (1964), cert. den. 380 U.S. 961; People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y. 2d 226, 205 N.E. 2d 852 [The Court has since held, in its June ......