People v. Hoffman
Decision Date | 21 January 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 37194,37194 |
Citation | 203 N.E.2d 873,32 Ill.2d 96 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Herbert H. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff in Error. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Richard J. Friedman, Friedman, Armstrong, Donnelly & Frieman, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for appellee.
Herbert H. Hoffman was found guilty of the murder of Virginia Edwards by a jury in the criminal court of Cook County and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 199 years. A constitutional question gives us jurisdiction.
The nude body of the deceased was found beaten and burned in a hotel room in Chicago. The defendant admitted having registered into the hotel with her the evening before as husband and wife. He testified, however, that he left the hotel room about 6 o'clock in the evening, returned about 6 o'clock the next morning and found her dead. A recitation of all the facts connecting defendant with the crime is not necessary.
Among other things defendant contends that he was denied due process when the prosecution, after his request, withheld evidence which was favorable to him and material to his guilt.
He states a pair of blue and white men's shorts, wet in the frontal area, were found by the police in the closet of the hotel room during their investigation, that his counsel asked to see the shorts and his request was denied. The People do not argue that such shorts were not found at the murder scene or that they are not available, rather they argue that defendant's request to see the shorts was not timely and that he has failed to show the materiality of the shorts.
While the record does not show whether shorts were found in the hotel room, it does reveal a persistent effort on the part of the prosecution to have all evidence on this point excluded. Officer Cunningham, the first officer to arrive at the scene of the crime, testified on cross-examination that he sent women's clothing and belongings of defendant to the crime laboratory. When asked what belongings of defendant were sent to the laboratory, he replied a radio, suitcases and men's clothing. He was asked to specify the items of men's clothing, but the People's objection was sustained. He was then asked if he had made a list of things that were sent to the crime laboratory to which objection was sustained. Later the officer named a number of things he sent to the crime laboratory. When asked if there could have been other things, he said there could have been but he did not remember. Again he was asked if he had made an inventory and he said yes. When asked if a pair of men's shorts were in the inventory, the People's objection was again sustained. During re-cross-examination Cunningham's report showing the inventoried items was given to defense counsel. It did not list a pair of shorts. He then asked if Cunningham had found a pair of blue and white men's shorts, to which objection was sustained. He next asked if everything found in the room had been inventoried and again objection was sustained. Several more questions along this line were asked, objections were sustained and finally defendant's counsel was admonished not to pursue the subject.
During a recess later in the trial, defense counsel informed the court that he had read a police report dated July 1, 1959, which in addition to the items named by Cunningham, listed a pair of blue and white men's shorts found in the closet and described as being wet in the frontal area. He told the court that he wanted to know where the shorts were and who found them because they did not belong to defendant. The prosecution said it had no knowledge of such a report, but that it would look for the report.
The trial continued and officer Di Leonardi, another of the investigating officers, was called as a witness. On cross-examination he was asked if he had seen a pair of blue and white men's shorts and again the People's objection was sustained. He was then asked if he had seen any other items of clothing besides those he had already mentioned, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Nichols
...were charged, the shoe, together with the palm print that belonged to some stranger, was material to the issue. In People v. Hoffman, 32 Ill.2d 96, 203 N.E.2d 873, the defendant was charged with the murder of a woman with whom, by his admission, he had registered as man and wife in a Chicag......
-
People v. Foster
...(1966), 35 Ill.2d 311, 331, 220 N.E.2d 297, Cert. denied (1967), 385 U.S. 1019, 87 S.Ct. 752, 17 L.Ed.2d 557; People v. Hoffman (1965), 32 Ill.2d 96, 100, 203 N.E.2d 873; People v. Kolep (1963), 29 Ill.2d 116, 124, 193 N.E.2d 753; People v. Adams (1962), 25 Ill.2d 568, 573, 185 N.E.2d 676; ......
-
People v. Gutirrez
...In addition, our supreme court rules specifically provide for the pre-trial disclosure of such evidence. (People v. Hoffman (1965), 32 Ill.2d 96, 99-100, 203 N.E.2d 873, 875; 107 Ill.2d R. 412, 413; see also People v. Keith (1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 93, 96, 22 Ill.Dec. 847-850, 383 N.E.2d 655, ......
-
People v. Myers
... ... The admission of photographs of the decedent is, of course, discretionary with the trial judge. (People v. Hoffman, 32 Ill.2d 96, 203 N.E.2d 873; People v. Adams, 25 Ill.2d 568, 185 N.E.2d 676; People v. Jenko, 410 Ill. 478, 102 N.E.2d 783.) We carefully examined the photographs and can not say that the trial court abused his discretion in admitting them into evidence. People v. Jenko, 410 Ill. 478, 102 ... ...