People v. Henne
| Decision Date | 24 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 11788,11788 |
| Citation | 296 N.E.2d 769,11 Ill.App.3d 405 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis HENNE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Kenneth L. Gillis, District Defender, Illinois Defender Project, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
L. Stanton Dotson, State's Atty., Charleston (Michael Prall, Staff Atty., Circuit Atty. Project, Bloomington, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant appeals from an order of the circuit court of Coles County finding him guilty of contempt of court and confining him in the Coles County jail 'until such time as the order to produce handwriting samples aforesaid is complied with'. The defendant was released on a $1000 recognizance bond pending appeal of the contempt order and sanction. We affirm.
The three indictments were brought against the defendant for forgery. He was tried by the jury on one and acquitted. Thereafter prior to trial on the other indictments, the prosecution during pretrial proceedings filed a motion asking that the defendant be ordered to provide the prosecution with handwriting samples. The court ordered the defendant to 'give handwriting samples of all the checks set forth in the indictments in the above-captioned cases, and said defendant is ordered to provide at least four samples of each check.' The court was advised that the defendant would not comply with this order and the court then found defendant in contempt of court and ordered him committed to the Coles County jail. The order was entered prior to the effective date of Rule No. 413(a)(viii), Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110A, § 413(a)(viii), which requires a defendant to 'provide a sample of his handwriting'--subject to constitutional limitations. The order of the circuit court must be scrutinized to determine whether it invades any of the defendant's constitutional rights at the time it was entered. We conclude that they were not.
The basic thrust of the defendant's position is that there is a vast difference between the language of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution which provides 'No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself * * *' and the Illinois Constitution. The defendant does not deny that under Gilbert v. State of Galifornia, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, the order here entered would not violate Federal constitutional restrictions. He insists, however, that the Federal restriction is much different than the Illinois Constitution of 1870 or 1970, S.H.A. Section 10, art. I, of the 1970 Illinois Constitution is identical with the language used in the Illinois Constitution of 1870 and provides 'No person shall be compelled in a criminal case to Give evidence against himself * * *'. (Emphasis supplied.) The defendant contends that the word 'give' places the Illinois constitutional provision in a posture more restrictive than that in the Federal Constitution. He argues that the term 'give' precludes the defendant from being required to perform a volitional act creating or transferring from his possession the evidence solicited. It prevents the defendant from performing the volitional act of creating the handwriting samples which may subsequently be used against him and is thus far removed from the passive cooperation of appearing in a line-up or being photographed. Thus, he reasons that the writing exemplars are prohibited by the Illinois Constitution because it requires affirmative action on his part.
We think that this differentiation between the Federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. Owens, 16977
...Utah's. State v. White, 102 Ariz. 162, 426 P.2d 796 (1967); State v. Trotter, 4 Conn.Cir. 185, 230 A.2d 618 (1967); People v. Henne, 11 Ill.App.3d 405, 296 N.E.2d 769 (1973); Newman v. Stinson, Ky., 489 S.W.2d 826 (1972); State v. O'Conner, La., 320 So.2d 188 (1975); State v. Buzynski, Me.,......
-
Com. v. Brennan
...their interpretation of their State Constitutions are: State v. White, 102 Ariz. 162, 163, 426 P.2d 796 (1967); People v. Henne, 11 Ill.App.3d 405, 406-407, 296 N.E.2d 769 (1973); State v. Haze, 218 Kan. 60, 542 P.2d 720, 722 (Kan.1975); Newman v. Stinson, 489 S.W.2d 826, 829 (Ky.1972); Sta......
-
People v. Montijo
...Department with a buccal swab for DNA comparison purposes, the trial court found him in indirect civil contempt. See People v. Henne, 11 Ill. App. 3d 405, 406-07 (1973). The record indicates that appointed counsel was present when the defendant refused to provide the swab.¶ 5 In October 201......