People v. Macaluso, No. 75--64
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | EBERSPACHER |
| Citation | 36 Ill.App.3d 592,344 N.E.2d 476 |
| Decision Date | 22 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--64 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles W. MACALUSO, Defendant-Appellee. |
Page 476
v.
Charles W. MACALUSO, Defendant-Appellee.
Page 477
[36 Ill.App.3d 593] Michael K. Grabowski, State's Atty., Perry County, Pinckneyville, for plaintiff-appellant.
Gerald D. Owens, Benton, J. Lewis Wingate, Vienna, for defendant-appellee.
EBERSPACHER, Justice.
This is an appeal by the State from an order entered by the circuit court of Perry County directing a verdict of acquittal in favor of the defendant, Charles W. Macaluso, on six counts of Official Misconduct (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 102, par. 4.1).
In the State's Notice of Appeal the instant appeal was characterized in the following manner:
'The Appeal in this case is taken from an Order of Honorable Robert L. Gagen denying Appellant's offer of exhibits 1 through 7 on behalf of the State and sustaining defendant's objection thereto; the State also appeals from an Order of said Robert L. Gagen striking the testimony of the only witness called by the State in this cause, Winton L. Bigham, County Clerk of Perry County; the State further appeals from the Order of Honorable Robert L. Gagen which directed the jury empaneled in said cause to return a verdict of not guilty. The State asserts that the Trial Court, by entering the foregoing order, in effect, suppressed evidence which was essential to the effective prosecution of the above cause.'
The last clause of State's Notice of Appeal was obviously included in an attempt to bring this action within the limitations of Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973), ch. 1190A, par. 604(a)(1)). Rule 604(a)(1) provides:
[36 Ill.App.3d 594] '(1) When State May Appeal. In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in dismissing a charge for any of the grounds enumerated in section 114--1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963; arresting a judgment because of a defective indictment, information or complaint; quashing an arrest or search warrant; or suppressing evidence.'
After examining the record we conclude than the trial court's action sustaining the defendant's objection to People's Exhibits numbers one through seven on the grounds of irrelevancy and immateriality did not amount to a 'suppression' of evidence withwithin the ambit of Rule 604. See, People v. Koch, 15 Ill.App.3d 386, 304 N.E.2d 482, 484;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Flatt, No. 52621
...(1972), 5 Ill.App.3d 827, 284 N.E.2d 353; People v. Koch (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 386, 389, 304 N.E.2d 482; People v. Macaluso (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 592, 594, 344 N.E.2d 476; People v. Young (1978), 60 Ill.App.3d 49, 56, 17 Ill.Dec. 566, 376 N.E.2d While we agree that it is suppression orders,......
-
People v. Johnson, No. 81-840
...49, 17 Ill.Dec. 566, 376 N.E.2d 712, cert. denied (1979), 440 U.S. 973, 99 S.Ct. 1539, 59 L.Ed.2d 790; People v. Macaluso (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 592, 344 N.E.2d 476.) However, in People v. Young (1980), 82 Ill.2d 234, 45 Ill.Dec. 150, 412 N.E.2d 501, our supreme court stated that "suppressed......
-
People v. McQueen, No. 82-418
...cited by defendant, People v. Williams (1982), 108 Ill.App.3d 219, 63 Ill.Dec. 948, 438 N.E.2d 1311, and People v. Macaluso (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 592, 344 N.E.2d 476, concern State appeals from mid-trial evidentiary rulings and are thus Prior to analyzing the merits of the State's appeal, d......
-
People v. Davidson, No. 82-125
...its probative value, was evidentiary in nature rather than suppressive. (See also People v. [116 Ill.App.3d 170] Macaluso (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 592, 344 N.E.2d 476.) Similarly, the court in People v. Johnson (1983), 113 Ill.App.3d 367, 69 Ill.Dec. 285, 447 N.E.2d 502, held that an order bas......
-
People v. Flatt, No. 52621
...(1972), 5 Ill.App.3d 827, 284 N.E.2d 353; People v. Koch (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 386, 389, 304 N.E.2d 482; People v. Macaluso (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 592, 594, 344 N.E.2d 476; People v. Young (1978), 60 Ill.App.3d 49, 56, 17 Ill.Dec. 566, 376 N.E.2d While we agree that it is suppression orders,......
-
People v. Johnson, No. 81-840
...49, 17 Ill.Dec. 566, 376 N.E.2d 712, cert. denied (1979), 440 U.S. 973, 99 S.Ct. 1539, 59 L.Ed.2d 790; People v. Macaluso (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 592, 344 N.E.2d 476.) However, in People v. Young (1980), 82 Ill.2d 234, 45 Ill.Dec. 150, 412 N.E.2d 501, our supreme court stated that "suppressed......
-
People v. McQueen, No. 82-418
...cited by defendant, People v. Williams (1982), 108 Ill.App.3d 219, 63 Ill.Dec. 948, 438 N.E.2d 1311, and People v. Macaluso (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 592, 344 N.E.2d 476, concern State appeals from mid-trial evidentiary rulings and are thus Prior to analyzing the merits of the State's appeal, d......
-
People v. Davidson, No. 82-125
...its probative value, was evidentiary in nature rather than suppressive. (See also People v. [116 Ill.App.3d 170] Macaluso (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 592, 344 N.E.2d 476.) Similarly, the court in People v. Johnson (1983), 113 Ill.App.3d 367, 69 Ill.Dec. 285, 447 N.E.2d 502, held that an order bas......