People v. Kosearas
| Decision Date | 18 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 31703,31703 |
| Citation | 96 N.E.2d 539,408 Ill. 179 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. KOSEARAS |
Wayne Wilson, and Lowell B. Smith, both of Sycamore, for plaintiff in error.
Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen. and Clark H. Countryman, State's Atty., of De Kalb (Harry L. Pate, of Tuscola, of counsel), for the People.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment of conviction entered by the circuit court of De Kalb County against the defendant, Peter Kosearas, for the crime of uttering a fictitious check. He was tried before a jury and upon its verdict of guilty was sentenced to the penitentiary for not less than five nor more than ten years. He complains here of the competency and sufficiency of evidence upon which his conviction was based, and of the conduct of the State's Attorney during the trial.
Our attention is first attracted to the contention that the trial court erroneously allowed the State's Attorney to establish by cross-examination that defendant had previously been confined in the penitentiary. Defendant took the witness stand on his own behalf and was cross-examined about his occupation and whereabouts previous to the date of the crime for which he was being tried. In this regard he testified that he had worked for one Donnelly for a period during 1948 and 1949. He was then asked what he had done prior to working for Donnelly. Defendant's counsel objected to the question and when the State's Attorney explained to the court that he was trying to show the jury what defendant had 'done during his life for the purpose of showing the jury what credibility (emphasis ours) they should give to his testimony,' the trial court overruled the objection. The question was repeated and defendant's response was that he was in prison.' His counsel thereupon moved that the answer be stricken and that a mistrial be declared. In arguing against the motion, the State's Attorney stated: 'It is my prerogative to inquire into this man's background to that extent for the purpose of informing the jury, and for the purpose of later arguing to the jury, as to what credibility should be given his testimony.' At this point the court and counsel retired to chambers to discuss the matter, following which the court denied the motion to strike and declare a mistrial, but admonished the State's Attorney not to pursue his line of questioning further. Notwithstanding this expression of warning by the court, the State's Attorney was further allowed, over objection, to ask the defendant why he had been arrested in California, and to make an insinuative inquiry as to whether the defendant had ever before testified as a witness in court.
Counsel for the People concede that, in criminal cases, proof of conviction of an infamous crime, for the purpose of affecting the credibility of a defendant, can be made only by the introduction of the record of conviction made before a competent tribunal. People v. Lane, 400 Ill. 170, 79 N.E.2d 65; Kirby v. People, 123 Ill. 436, 15 N.E. 33; Bartholomew v. People, 104 Ill. 601....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Perez
...(1951), 125 Mont. 31, 35-36, 231 P.2d 343; Leo v. State (1902), 63 Neb. 723, 730-731, 89 N.W. 303; see also People v. Kosearas (1951), 408 Ill. 179, 180-181, 96 N.E.2d 539.) As another instance wherein it is contended by appellant that the prosecution improperly sought to undermine the cred......
-
People v. Kellas
...conviction or an authenticated copy thereof. (People v. Flynn (1956), 8 Ill.2d 116, 121, 133 N.E.2d 257, 259; People v. Kosearas (1951), 408 Ill. 179, 180, 96 N.E.2d 539, 540; People v. Preston (1978), 61 Ill.App.3d 434, 438, 18 Ill.Dec. 908, 912, 378 N.E.2d 372, 376; People v. Ring (1967),......
-
People v. Davis
... ... (People v. McCrimmon, 37 Ill.2d 40, 45, 224 N.E.2d 822; People v. Flynn, 8 Ill.2d 116, 120, 133 N.E.2d 257.) The basis for this rule is the prejudice to a defendant who is compelled to testify before a jury as to his prior convictions. Flynn at 121, 133 N.E.2d 257; People v. Kosearas, 408 Ill. 179, 181, 96 N.E.2d 539." People v. Bey (1969), 42 Ill.2d 139, 246 N.E.2d 287, 291-292 ... [54 Ill.App.3d 526] However, as in Spenard, defendant has waived the issue before this court. At trial, defense counsel's objections to the admissibility of the exhibits ... ...
-
People v. Adams
... ... A defendant who testifies in his own behalf may be impeached by a prior conviction only by the record of the conviction or an authenticated copy thereof. (People v. Flynn (1956), 8 Ill.2d 116, 133 N.E.2d 257; People v. Kosearas (1951), 408 Ill. 179, 96 N.E.2d 539; People v. White (1980), 84 Ill.App.3d 1044, 40 Ill.Dec. 306, 406 N.E.2d 7.) Cross-examination of a defendant as to a prior conviction is improper where direct examination has not covered the subject. (People v. White; People v. Natoli (1979), 70 Ill.App.3d 131, ... ...