People v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 29 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41452,41452 |
| Citation | 244 N.E.2d 173,41 Ill.2d 571 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Edwin PALMER, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Bauch, Chicago, appointed by the court, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and John J. Stamos, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Michael Stevenson, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for appellee.
The defendant, Edwin Palmer, was tried by the court without a jury in the circuit court of Cook County and convicted of armed robbery for which he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than three years. He has appealed directly to this court, a constitutional question being involved.
On appeal, the only claim advanced by the defendant is that the trial court should not have permitted the courtroom identification of the defendant by the victim because the identification was allegedly the product of a pretrial confrontation between the defendant and the victim in the absence of the defendant's counsel. Defendant's argument is based upon 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. Each of those cases involved a lineup proceeding which was conducted after the defendant had been indicted and after counsel had been appointed for him. In each case the defendant's attorney was not notified of the lineup and was not present. The Supreme Court held that the lineup was a critical stage of the proceedings and that defendant was entitled to the presence of counsel. In our opinion these 'lineup' decisions apply only to post-indictment confrontations. We reach this decision because of the language of the United States Supreme Court in these cases and in the subsequent case of Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247. In Wade, the court stated that the question was 'whether courtroom identifications of an accused at trial are to be excluded from evidence because the accused was exhibited to the witnesses before trial at a post-indictment lineup conducted for identification purposes without notice to and in the absence of the accused's appointed counsel.' (388 U.S. at 219, 87 S.ct. at 1928, 18 L.ed.2d at 1153.) in gilbert the court summarized its decision in Wade as follows: 'We there held that a post-indictment pretrial lineup at which the accused is exhibited to identifying witnesses is a critical stage of the criminal prosecution; that police conduct of such a lineup without notice to and in the absence of his counsel denies the accused his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and calls in question the admissibility at trial of the in-court identifications of the accused by witnesses who attended the lineup.' (388 U.S. at 272, 87 S.Ct. at 1956, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1186.) In Simmons the court in referring to the 'lineup cases' stated 'The rationale of those cases was that an accused is entitled to counsel at any 'critical stage of the prosecution,' and that a post-indictment lineup is such a 'critical stage." 390 U.S. at 382, 88 S.Ct. at 970, 19 L.Ed.2d at 1252.
The facts in the present case are as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mustacchio
...and differing views have been expressed as to the applicability of Wade to such preindictment situations. Compare People v. Palmer, 41 Ill.2d 571, 244 N.E.2d 173 (1969) With People v. Fowler, 1 Cal.3d 335, 82 Cal.Rptr. 363, 461 P.2d 643 (1969); Joyner v. State, 7 Md.App. 692, 257 A.2d 444 (......
-
Perryman v. State
...Wade and Gilbert and would limit the decisions to post-indictment lineups. State v. Walters, 457 S.W.2d 817 (Mo., 1970); People v. Palmer, 41 Ill.2d 571, 244 N.E.2d 173; People v. Green, 118 Ill.App.2d 36, 254 N.E.2d 663; State v. Thomas, 107 N.J.Super. 128, 257 A.2d 377; State v. Fields, 1......
-
Kirby v. Illinois 8212 5061
...that the admission of Shard's testimony was not error, relying upon an earlier decision of the Illinois Supreme Court, People v. Palmer, 41 Ill.2d 571, 244 N.E.2d 173, holding that the Wade-Gilbert per se exclusionary rule is not applicable to preindictment We granted certiorari, limited to......
-
People v. Henderson
...of the instant proceedings, it was clear that defendants had no absolute right to counsel at a preindictment lineup. (People v. Palmer, 41 Ill.2d 571, 244 N.E.2d 173; People v. Rodgers,3 Ill.App.3d 85, 279 N.E.2d 72, Aff'd, 53 Ill.2d 207, 290 N.E.2d 251.) The trial court correctly denied th......