People v. Hartgraves, No. 38098

• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: SOLFISBURG
• 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.
• Docket Number: No. 38098
• Decision Date: 29 September 1964

Page 33

202 N.E.2d 33 31 Ill.2d 375 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error,
v.
Robert HARTGRAVES, Plaintiff in Error. No. 38098. Supreme Court of Illinois. Sept. 29, 1964.
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 exactly the procedure set forth in the case of People v. Wolff, and more fully explained in People v. Wright, 30 Ill.2d 519, 198 N.E.2d 316.

Despite our belief that the trial court correctly followed the proper procedure with regard to an impeaching document, we feel that the defendant was entitled to inspect the report for another reason. It is clear that a defendant has the right to examine any document used by a witness on the stand to refresh his present recollection. This right was extended by this court in People v. Scott, 29 Ill.2d 97, 193 N.E.2d 814, [31 Ill.2d 378] where we held that a defendant had the right to inspect any refreshing material referred to by a witness before trial outside the courtroom. Since officer Weiss testified that he had refreshed his recollection by reference to this report, the defendant was entitled to examine the document on that ground. The record does not make it clear whether defendant's demand for production of the document was grounded on the right to inspect an impeaching document or a refreshing document. In this appeal defendant relies solely on the doctrine of the Moses and Wolff cases which, as we have noted, was followed. Defendant did not seek to incorporate the document into the record...