People v. Martin

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CREBS; WARD
• Citation: People v. Martin, 256 N.E.2d 337, 44 Ill.2d 489 (Ill. 1970)
• Decision Date: 28 January 1970
• Docket Number: No. 41435,41435
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Ronald George MARTIN, Appellant.

Page 337

256 N.E.2d 337

44 Ill.2d 489

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Ronald George MARTIN, Appellant.

No. 41435.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 28, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1970.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago (Ronald P. Katz and James J. Doherty, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Robert McGee, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.

CREBS, Justice.

Ronald Martin, the defendant, was convicted of the murder of Everett McCrea, which occurred on April 7, 1962. In subsequent appeals to the Appellate Court, First District, (62 Ill.App.2d 203, 210 N.E.2d 798) and to this court (35 Ill.2d 289, 220 N.E.2d 170) his conviction was affirmed. At a post-conviction hearing conducted during December, 1967, defendant raised for the first time the issue that he was denied effective representation of appointed counsel at his trial. The circuit court of Cook County denied defendant's prayer for relief on January 19, 1968, after an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appeals this decision.

At defendant's trial there were two main witnesses for the State. One was Mrs. McCrea, wife of the murder victim, who positively identified the defendant as the murderer. The other important witness was Fred Baum who testified that defendant was armed and in the tavern at the time of the shooting. The defendant's appointed attorneys vigorously cross-examined these witnesses. However, the attorneys failed to call any witnesses for the defense even though the defendant had given them the names of an alibi witness and another witness who could testify to the lack of credibility of Fred Baum. The defendant claims he fully expected these witnesses to be called by his counsel and asserts that his attorneys' failure to call them deprived him of adequate representation.

We find no merit in defendant's assertion. Both the attorneys were well qualified to represent the defendant in a murder trial. Both had been practicing in Illinois for over ten years. One had been an assistant State's Attorney for Cook County in the criminal division for three years where he handled hundreds of criminal prosecutions. The other attorney had handled 15 to 20 criminal cases including murder cases. The record also shows that defendant's trial counsel did thorough preparation work for trial. They visited the scene of the crime and took pictures, interviewed a number of prospective witnesses, and conferred with the defendant on numerous occasions.

We find that the decision not to call defense witnesses was based on the exercise of judgment and discretion. The alibi witness had a criminal record and was a drinking partner of the defendant....