People v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 22 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 53755 |
| Citation | 270 N.E.2d 498,132 Ill.App.2d 464 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gerald W. Getty, Chester P. Majewski, James Doherty, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Robert A. Novelle, John A. Gibaitis, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant, Jessie Jackson, was convicted by a jury of the crime of burglary, and was sentenced by the court to a term of 3 to 7 years. He appeals, contending that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing to determine whether defendant could testify without fear of having his prior conviction record introduced into evidence. Defendant also argues that he was penalized for exercising his right to trial by jury. A brief summary of the evidence offered by the State follows.
On July 31, 1968, at about 1:00 a.m., the complaining witness, accompanied by her five children and a male companion, returned to her apartment. When she started to unlock the door, she noticed that it was already unlocked. As they entered, they discovered all her belongings strewn about and the apartment in a state of disarray. The complaining witness noticed a shadow in the hallway, and her companion grabbed and subdued defendant. Defendant told them and the police that he had been let into the apartment by a man who was moving out.
After the State had rested its case, defense counsel informed the court that he had advised defendant to testify, but that defendant had indicated that he did not wish to do so. After the court denied defense counsel's motion for a directed verdict, defendant asked to have another lawyer other than the Public Defender. He stated that he wanted another lawyer because the Public Defender was not putting his defense before the jury. The trial judge accurately informed defendant that he was the only person who could put his case before the jury since all other occurrence witnesses had testified for the State. The court also informed defendant that he had the right to refuse to testify. Defendant stated that he would not testify because the State would bring out his prior criminal record. The trial judge then explained to defendant that he was denying his motion for a change of attorney because the case had been on trial for two days and was nearly ended.
At the hearing in aggravation and mitigation conducted after the verdict and judgment of guilt was entered, it was brought out that in 1956 defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary for one year to one year and a day for assault to commit robbery. In 1959 defendant was sentenced to 6 months in the House of Correction. In 1961 defendant was sentenced for 2 to 5 years for burglary, and was released from the penitentiary in June 1965. In 1966 defendant was sentenced to one year in the State Farm at Vandalia for grand theft and aggravated battery. It was stipulated that defendant was 49 years of age.
Defendant first maintains that the trial court committed reversible error in failing on its own motion to conduct a hearing to determine whether or not defendant could be permitted to testify without having his prior conviction for the infamous crime of burglary introduced into evidence. Defendant concedes that no request for such a hearing was made at trial.
We are unaware of any authority or holding that requires a trial court on its own motion without request by defendant to conduct a hearing to determine the admissibility of a prior conviction as impeachment of defendant. However we do not decide the instant case on that narrow issue.
The Criminal Code, Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, § 155--1, provides as follows:
'No person shall be disqualified as a witness in any criminal case or proceeding by reason of his interest in the event of the same, as a party or otherwise, or by reason of his having been convicted of any crime; but such interest or conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credibility.'
Our courts have also held that if a defendant takes the witness stand, he may be impeached only by proof of a prior conviction of an infamous crime. People v. Kirkpatrick, 413 Ill. 595, 110 N.E.2d 519 (1953). Burglary is an infamous crime, Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, § 124--1, and in 1961 defendant had been convicted of burglary.
Recently, in People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill.2d 510, 268 N.E.2d 695 (1971), the Supreme Court held that impeachment of a defendant by introduction of a prior conviction was a matter to be determined in the discretion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Carroll
...motion to suppress evidence of defendant's prior rape conviction. People v. Rossi, 52 Ill.2d 13, 284 N.E.2d 275; compare People v. Jackson, 132 Ill.App.2d 464, 270 NE.2d Second, defendant contends that the trial court committed error when it denied his motion to suppress the State's identif......
-
People v. Hill
...Our own research indicates that at least two Illinois cases, People v. Davis, 18 Ill.App.3d 793, 310 N.E.2d 682 and People v. Jackson, 132 Ill.App.2d 464, 270 N.E.2d 498 (to be discussed hereinafter), have given some consideration to this issue. The issue has also been discussed in a number......
-
People v. Ray
... ... Other courts have correctly concluded that the holding in Montgomery was to be prospective only. (People v. Clark, 3 Ill.App.3d ... 196, 278 N.E.2d 511; People v. Jackson, 132 Ill.App.2d 464, 270 N.E.2d 498; People v. McClain, 132 Ill.App.2d 669, 270 N.E.2d 176; and People v. Beck, 133 Ill.App.2d 356, 273 N.E.2d 169.) We, also, have stated that Montgomery was to apply only to future cases. People ex rel. Walker v. Pate, 53 Ill.2d 485, 292 N.E.2d 287 ... ...
- People v. Isabell