People v. Jolliff
| Decision Date | 24 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 38329,38329 |
| Citation | 31 Ill.2d 462,202 N.E.2d 506 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Edward JOLLIFF, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Sam Adam and Anthony F. Mannina, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Robert K. Kelty, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.
The defendant, Edward Jolliff, together with one Jim Honson and Lee Ryan, was indicted by the grand jury of the criminal court of Cook County for the crime of armed robbery. The defendant was tried separately by a jury and found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 3 nor more than 6 years.
The defendant does not claim that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt, and it is therefore unnecessary to recite the evidence in detail. The indictment charged him with armed robbery from the person of Edward Chynn. The State's evidence showed that Chynn was a member of a private club whose members were all persons of Oriental extraction. In the early morning hours, Chynn and other members were playing cards in the club. The State introduced testimony to show that the defendant and others entered the club under the pretext that they were police officers who were raiding the gambling game and took money from several members, including Edward Chynn. Chynn did not testify at the trial and the defendant contends that by reason of his failure to testify there was a variance between the indictment and the proof, and also argues that the defendant was denied his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. We find no merit in these claims. The testimony that money was taken from Chynn, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to establish the crime charged in the indictment and it was not necessary that Chynn himself testify. (See People v. Renallo, 410 Ill. 372, 376, 102 N.E.2d 116.) The constitutional provision relied upon by the defendant is inapplicable. It guarantees the defendant the right to be present in court and hear the witnesses testify, and the right to subject them to cross-examination, but does not guarantee that the victim of the crime testify in person.
The first witness for the State was asked whether he had heard any conversation by the defendant at a police line-up. Over a general objection by counsel for the defendant, the witness replied that a police officer asked the defendant whether he had 'stuck up' the place and the defendant replied, 'Yes'. Counsel for the defendant then stated that he objected to any questions and answers on the ground that the answers of the defendant were involuntary. Counsel requested that a hearing be held out of the presence of the jury to determine whether the defendant's statements were voluntary but the court denied the request. Later in the trial another witness was asked whether the defendant had made any statement and counsel again objected and requested that a preliminary hearing be held. The court overruled the objection and denied the request and the witness testified that the defendant had admitted the crime. Still later, a police officer was asked the same question and counsel made the same objection and again requested a preliminary hearing be held. The court overruled the objection and denied the request and the witness testified that the defendant had admitted the robbery.
The defendant testified that prior to the line-up he was beaten and kicked by a police officer over a period of approximately two hours. During the cross-examination of the defendant on this point the court stated in the presence of the jury that the defendant had made some serious accusations against the arresting officers and that the State had the right to show the jury whether the defendant was telling the truth.
In rebuttal the prosecutor stated that due to the fact that counsel for the defendant had raised, in the middle of the trial, an 'allegation and insinuation' that the defendant's statement was involuntary, the State was asking the court to reconsider its previous ruling and hear testimony out of the presence of the jury on the question of whether the confession was voluntary. Counsel for the defendant responded by stating that he had not raised the issue in the middle of the trial but had raised it at the first opportunity and had renewed the objection each time testimony concerning the defendant's statement was offered. Counsel renewed his contention that a hearing should have been held before testimony concerning the statements was admitted before the jury. The court asked him whether he wished to waive his right to a hearing at the present stage of the trial and counsel replied that he did not wish to waive such a hearing but felt that it should have been conducted before evidence of the statements had been admitted....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. State
...as our research discloses, all the state courts which have considered the question have construed Jackson to so hold. People v. Jolliff, 31 Ill.2d 462, 202 N.E.2d 506; Freeman v. Gladden (Ore.), 396 P.2d 779; State v. Ortiz, 97 Ariz. 228, 399 P.2d 171; State v. Owen, 96 Ariz. 274, 394 P.2d ......
-
Hoover v. State, CR-77-187
...the crime by the testimony of other witnesses does not constitute a variance from an indictment naming the victim. People v. Jolliff, 31 Ill.2d 462, 202 N.E.2d 506 (1964); State v. Malloch, 225 A.2d 760 (Me., 1967); Gaertner v. State, 35 Wis.2d 159, 150 N.W.2d 370 (1967); State v. James, 76......
-
State v. Drapeau
...did not deprive appellant of any confrontation right. People v. Fisher, 208 Cal.App.2d 78, 25 Cal.Rptr. 242 (1962); People v. Jolliff, 31 Ill.2d 462, 202 N.E.2d 506 (1964); State ex rel. Byrd v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 476, 381 S.W.2d 280 (1964); Flatt v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.2d 793 (Ky.Ct. of Ap......
-
McDole v. State
...the crime by the testimony of other witnesses does not constitute a variance from an indictment naming the victim. People v. Jolliff, 31 Ill.2d 462, 202 N.E.2d 506 (1964); State v. Malloch, 225 A.2d 760 (Me., 1967); Gaertner v. State, 35 Wis.2d 159, 150 N.W.2d 370 (1967); State v. James, 76......