People v. McMath, 42002
| Decision Date | 24 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42002,42002 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Golden McMATH, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago (Shelvin Singer, 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 Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Asst. State's Attys., of counsel) for the People.
After a trial by jury in the circuit court of Cook County, Golden McMath was found guilty of the offense of robbery and sentenced to a term of not less than 5 nor more than 15 years. The Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the conviction (104 Ill.App.2d 302, 244 N.E.2d 330), and we granted leave to appeal. The principal issue before this court is whether the defendant was denied due process of law because of an in-court identification and testimony concerning an out-of-court identification.
The facts underlying this appeal indicate that on May 21, 1965, at 4:50 A.M., Lovada Walker was stopped at gun point by a man wearing a stocking cap over his face. The assailant told her to do as he would say and she would not be hurt. He then grabbed her purse and fled down an alley. Mrs. Walker ran to a nearby service station at 95th and LaSalle Streets in Chicago and asked the attendant to call the police.
Police officers Lawrence Tobuck and Earl Davy, while patrolling the area, noticed the defendant driving an automobile at an excessive rate of speed. After pursuing the car for several blocks, they caught him when his automobile struck a parked car. Upon confronting defendant at his car, Tobuck noticed a toy pistol and a stocking cap on the front seat and also a purse lying in the gutter near the driver's door. He examined the purse and found Mrs. Walker's identification.
After checking with headquarters, Tobuck was informed that a robbery involving Mrs. Walker had just been reported. The officers took defendant immediately to the service station where the first confrontation between defendant and Mrs. Walker took place. She testified that she was able to identify the defendant at that time by his voice, height and build. Later the same day, she went to the 5th district police station where she was again confronted by the defendant. She identified him as the offender after a nylon mask was put over his face, and he said the words, 'Give me your purse'. Defendant was the only suspect present at the time.
The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, has held that a post-indictment pretrial confrontation for identification purposes is a critical stage of a prosecution at which an accused needs the presence of counsel, and thus a confrontation without notice to and in the absence of counsel denies the individual his sixth amendment right to the assistance of counsel. However, in Stovall v. Denno (June 12, 1967), 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, the Supreme Court ruled that the requirements of Gilbert and Wade are prospective in application and may be invoked only where the identification confrontation took place after June 12, 1967. The court did recognize, though, that where, as here, the confrontation took place on or before June 12, 1967, the defendant may establish that in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances, the viewing of the accused was so prejudicial as to deprive him of due process of law. People v. Blumenshine, 42 Ill.2d 508, 511--512, 250 N.E.2d 152, 154.
'The practice of showing suspects singly to persons for the purpose of identification, and not as part of a lineup, has been widely condemned.' (388 U.S. at 302, 87 S.Ct. at 1972, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1206.) Only under certain circumstances may these identifications be justified. Single suspect show-ups have been justified where: (1) the viewing in a hospital was necessary because it was uncertain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State, 38
...550, 50 Ill.Dec. 21, 27, 418 N.E.2d 1015, 1021 (1981); People v. McMath, 104 Ill.App.2d 302, 244 N.E.2d 330, 336 (1968), aff'd 45 Ill.2d 33, 256 N.E.2d 835 (1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846, 91 S.Ct. 92, 27 L.Ed.2d 83 (1970); Fuqua, 379 N.W.2d at 445. In Brown, 416 N.E.2d at 224, the court......
-
People v. Conley
...a person would normally have made the statement. (People v. McMath (1968), 104 Ill.App.2d 302, 315, 244 N.E.2d 330, aff'd 45 Ill.2d 33, 256 N.E.2d 835, cert. denied McMath v. Illinois, 400 U.S. 846, 91 S.Ct. 92, 27 L.Ed.2d 83.) At issue here is whether the State properly established the req......
-
People v. Carroll
...one arising from an uninfluenced observation of the defendant. See People v. McMath, 104 Ill.App.2d 302, 244 N.E.2d 330, aff'd, 45 Ill.2d 33, 256 N.E.2d 835. Therefore, the trial court did not commit error when it denied defendant's motion to suppress the State's identification Third, defen......
-
People v. Richardson
...1199, 1206.) Defendant bears the burden of proving that such a confrontation resulted in a denial of due process. People v. McMath (1970), 45 Ill.2d 33, 36, 256 N.E.2d 835, cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 846, 91 S.Ct. 92, 27 L.Ed.2d The two series of photographs used in the identification pr......