People v. Merritt
| Decision Date | 28 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 57736,57736 |
| Citation | 305 N.E.2d 579,16 Ill.App.3d 72 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron MERRITT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James J. Doherty, Public Defender of Cook County, Chicago, defendant-appellant; Harold A. Cowen, Asst. Public Defender, of counsel.
Bernard Carety, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Kenneth L. Gillis, William G. McMaster, Barry Rand Elden, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cook County. The defendant, Aaron Merritt, along with the co-defendant, Richard Franklin, was indicted for the crime of attempted armed robbery. Co-defendant Franklin was acquitted. Defendant Merritt was found guilty and sentenced to a term of from of from two to six years in the Illinois State Penitentiary.
The issues presented on appeal are: (1) whether there was reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt, where the codefendant was found not guilty in a joint trial; (2) whether the court erred in restricting cross-examination as to past arrests of complainants; (3) whether the court erred in failing to grant a severance Sua sponte; and (4) whether there was prejudicial error in the prosecutor's closing argument.
On July 21, 1971, complaining witness Doke was driving through an alley behind 7719 Calumet, Chicago, Illinois, with complaining witness Thigpen as his passenger. They encountered a 1965 Dodge being driven in the opposite direction by the defendant, Aaron Merritt. Merritt had a passenger in the front seat. Identification of the passenger was contradicted. Merritt testified it was one 'Smity,' but both complaining witnesses said it was co-defendant Franklin. According to the complainants, defendant Merritt demanded money as co-defendant Franklin pointed a pistol at them. Complainants then drove out of the alley onto the street. They were followed for several blocks by defendant Merritt and his passenger. Upon spotting a police car, the complainants stopped and explained the situation to the police officer. The police officer, along with the complainants, immediately gave chase to the defendant's car. Several blocks away defendant's car was discovered. It was parked, with nobody in it. The police officer searched the car, discovering a wallet with defendant Merritt's identification and a loaded .38 caliber pistol under the front seat. Co-defendant Franklin was arrested the same day as the crime, upon identification by both complainants. Defendant Merritt was arrested on July 26, 1971. He was identified by both complainants, independently, in a police line-up. In a joint trial, co-defendant Franklin was acquitted by a jury, while defendant Merritt was found guilty of attempted armed robbery.
The defendant contends that a reasonable doubt as to the co-defendant compels a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt because the two men were indissolubly connected by the State's evidence. In support of this contention the defendant relies primarily on the decision in People v. Griffin (1967), 88 Ill.App.2d 28, 232 N.E.2d 216, wherein the Appellate Court reversed Griffin's conviction in the face of an acquittal for the co-defendant.
We do not agree with the defendant's contention. A through review of the record indicates the identification evidence differed greatly as to the defendant and the co-defendant. The defendant admitted driving his car in the alley and confronting the two complainants. He admitted he had a gun in the car. He admitted following the complainants. As the two cars passed each other in the alley, the opportunity to observe the defendant was better than as to his passenger. In contrast to the strong evidence against the defendant, the identification of the co-defendant was controverted. The identification rested solely upon the testimony of the two complaining witnesses. The defendant Franklin, one 'Smitty,' not co-defendant Franklin, was with him on the date of the crime. The presumption of innocence was never overcome in the jury's opinion as to co-defendant Franklin, whereas the jury had no doubt as to the defendant's guilt. In People v. Hairston (1970), 46 Ill.2d 348, 263 N.E.2d 840, the Supreme Court held that where verdicts inconsistently acquit and convict of separate crimes arising from the same act, the courts have followed the view that logical consistency in verdicts in such instances is not necessary, so long as the verdicts are not legally inconsistent. In the instant case the acquittal of co-defendant Franklin is not legally inconsistent with the finding of guilty as to the defendant.
The defendant further contends the court erred in restricting cross-examination as to past arrests of the complainants. He cites the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Veal
...People v. Palmer (1970), 47 Ill.2d 289, 265 N.E.2d 627, cert. denied, 402 U.S. 931, 91 S.Ct. 1532, 28 L.Ed.2d 866; People v. Merritt (1973), 16 Ill.App.3d 72, 305 N.E.2d 579.) While any remarks that defense counsel had been attempting to trick the jury were improper, we conclude that defend......
-
People v. Precup
...trial has begun and progresses substantially. In The People v. McCasle (1966), 35 Ill.2d 552, 221 N.E.2d 227 and The People v. Merritt (1973), 16 Ill.App.3d 72, 305 N.E.2d 579, it was contended that there should have been a sua sponte severance of trials by the court. In McCasle, each defen......
-
People v. Miner
...41 Ill.2d 494, 244 N.E.2d 145 (1969); People v. Perry, 27 Ill.App.3d 565, 327 N.E.2d 259 (2d Dist. 1975); People v. Merritt, 16 Ill.App.3d 72, 305 N.E.2d 579 (1st Dist. 1973).) Defendant's motion for a severance must set out specific grounds showing why a severance is necessary, and mere ap......
-
People v. Cepolski
...N.E.2d 498, 501; See generally People v. Mason (1963), 28 Ill.2d 396, 400-01, 192 N.E.2d 835. The State relies on People v. Merritt (1973), 16 Ill.App.3d 72, 305 N.E.2d 579, and People v. Williams (1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 752, 13 Ill.Dec. 234, 370 N.E.2d 1261, for the proposition that defense ......