People v. Rhymer
| Decision Date | 29 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--12,73--12 |
| Citation | 336 N.E.2d 203,32 Ill.App.3d 431 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joyce June RHYMER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Paul Bradley, First Deputy, State Appellate Defender, First Judicial District, Brenda E. Richey, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
W. C. Spomer, State's Atty., Ralph J. Mendelsohn, Staff Atty., State's Attorney Task Force, First Judicial Circuit, State of Illinois, Inc., Cairo, for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant was indicted and tried before a jury for the offenses of conspiracy to commit theft, burglary and theft. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit theft, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to two years probation.
There are two issues presented by the defendant in her appeal: whether the State proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and whether she was denied a fair trial due to a conflict of interest on the part of the prosecutor.
It will not be necessary to discuss the question of reasonable doubt, as the judgment must be reversed, because of the conflict of interest of the assistant state's attorney who presented the case for the State.
During a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress certain out of court statements, it was revealed that shortly after her arrest the defendant visited William Meehan's office. Mr. Meehan was a part-time assistant state's attorney, and also maintained a private law practice in the city of Cairo, Illinois. An investigator for the state's attorney's office of Alexander County testified that he was in Mr. Meehan's office at the time that the defendant and one Monroe Baucher visited the office. Mr. Baucher was a divorce client of Mr. Meehan.
The record at the hearing on the motion to suppress indicates that the defendant was in the office twenty to thirty minutes discussing her involvement in a crime before Mr. Meehan realized the impact of her statements and informed the defendant of her constitutional rights. The investigator testified that he was present during the conversation, but that he did not pay much attention until four or five minutes had elapsed when he realized that defendant was giving details of a 'crime' which had been committed at the Cairo River and Rail Warehouse. He said on cross-examination that it might have been as long as half an hour before the defendant was advised of her constitutional rights by Mr. Meehan. At that time a tape recorder was turned on and a statement taken from the defendant. The statement taken at this meeting was ordered suppressed by the court after a hearing.
Several weeks after the meeting in Mr. Meehan's office the defendant was indicted and five months later Mr. Meehan appeared as attorney of record, handling the prosecution for the state's attorney's office.
The central issue in this case is whether an attorney who has gained information from a defendant seeking his services can later prosecute that same defendant on charges arising out of the case they discussed. We hold that there was a conflict of interest on behalf of the prosecution, which denied defendant a fair trial.
It is well settled that where an attorney has, though his professional services to a client, acquired confidential information and then later participated in any way in the prosecution of the case, reversible error is committed. People v. Gerold, 265 Ill. 448, 107 N.E. 165; People v. Curry, 1 Ill.App.3d 87, 272 N.E.2d 669; People v. Lee, 8 Ill.App.3d 232, 289 N.E.2d 641. As the court pointed out in Gerold:
'An attorney cannot be permitted to assist in the prosecution of a criminal case if by reason of his professional relations with the accused he has acquired a knowledge of the facts upon which the prosecution is predicated or which are closely interwoven therewith.'
In State v. Leigh, 178 Kan. 549, 289 P.2d 774 (1955), the defendant and his wife conferred several times with an attorney, seeking his professional services in defending a charge. The attorney was subsequently elected County Attorney and prosecuted the defendant for the offense they had discussed. The court found the attorney's behavior to be reversible error, even though the attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chadwick v. Superior Court
...him for violation of the probation). See also, People v. Jiminez (1974) 187 Colo. 97, 101, 528 P.2d 913, 915; and People v. Rhymer (1975) 32 Ill.App.3d 431, 336 N.E.2d 203, 204. None of these cases addresses the problem of vicarious disqualification presented in this case.7 Petitioners divi......
-
People v. Green
...6 Ariz.App. 436, 433 P.2d 289 (1967); Young v. State, 177 So.2d 345 (Fla.App.1965); State v. Latigue, fn. 17 Supra; People v. Rhymer, 32 Ill.App.3d 431, 336 N.E.2d 203 (1975); State v. Britton, W.Va., 203 S.E.2d 462 (1974); Burkett v. State, fn. 18 Supra; State v. Chambers, fn. 18 Supra.The......
-
Nicholas v. Sammons
...19 Cal.3d 255, 137 Cal.Rptr. 476, 561 P.2d 1164 (1977); Burkett v. State, 131 Ga.App. 662, 206 S.E.2d 848 (1974); People v. Rhymer, 32 Ill.App.3d 431, 336 N.E.2d 203 (1975); State v. Tippecanoe County Court, 432 N.E.2d 1377 (Ind.1982); People v. Doyle, 159 Mich.App. 632, 406 N.W.2d 893 (198......
-
People v. Patterson, s. 80-1636
... ... People v. Gerold (1914), 265 Ill. 448, 107 N.E. 165; People v. Rhymer (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 431, 336 N.E.2d 203; People v. Curry (1971), 1 Ill.App.3d 87, 272 N.E.2d 669 ... We finally consider defendants' contention that they were not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this argument defendants stress several points: that Green's ... ...