People v. Rose
| Decision Date | 19 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 36135,36135 |
| Citation | 174 N.E.2d 673,22 Ill.2d 185 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Vicki ROSE, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Stephen Lee, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Gallagher and James R. Thompson, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
The defendant, Vicki Rose, was tried by jury in the criminal court of Cook County and found guilty of illegally selling narcotic drugs. A writ of error had been issued to review the judgment of conviction.
The defendant first contends that she was arrested illegally and that the arresting officers searched her apartment without a warrant. We find it unnecessary to consider the defendant's contention that she was illegally arrested for it is settled that illegal arrest, in itself, in no way affects a judgment of conviction (People v. Smith, 11 Ill.2d 280, 143 N.E.2d 50; People v. Brown, 368 Ill. 177, 13 N.E.2d 272). It is likewise unnecessary to determine whether the search was legal, for all of the witnesses testified that nothing was found as a result of the search.
Defendant also assigns as error the admission of testimony by the arresting officers that defendant made certain oral admissions at the time of her arrest. She contends that evidence of these admissions should have been excluced because she was at that time suffering from withdrawal from narcotics and was so ill that the admissions must be considered involuntary. She also contends that she was promised immunity if she would confess her guilt. However, the defendant testified that she did not admit making any sale of narcotics at the time of her arrest and testified that she did not, to her knowledge, make any such admission at the police station. Where a defendant denies making any statement, a simple question of fact is presented as to whether the statement was made and the trial court is not required to determine whether it was was voluntarily made. People v. Hegovic, 348 Ill. 58, 180 N.E. 561. The question of whether the defendant in fact made any admissions of guilt was a question of fact for the jury to determine and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of these admissions.
In order to pass upon the defendant's contention that evidence of other crimes was improperly admitted it becomes necessary to summarize the evidence at the trial on this question. The defendant was indicted for a sale of narcotics to one James Bailey on January 27, 1959. Bailey testified that he met the defendant on January 27. He had a conversation with the defendant about the sale of narcotics and defendant agreed to sell him some. By agreement Bailey and the defendant went into a theater next door to the restaurant where they had met and Bailey gave her some money and she handed him some narcotics. Bailey testified that on February 11 he called a certain telephone number and a woman answered the telephone. He testified that he recognized the voice as that of the defendant. Defendant's counsel objected upon the ground that an insufficient foundation had been laid and Bailey then testified that he had heard the defendant's voice before on January 27, and also on January 23. There was no further testimony at that time with respect to the conversation of January 23. The trial judge overruled the objection and Bailey testified that in the telephone conversation he asked defendant if she could sell him some more narcotics and that she refused, saying that she was leaving since there was a lot of 'heat' around. Bailey and other agents then went to defendant's apartment and arrested her.
On cross-examination Bailey admitted that he had never before heard the defendant's voice over a telephone and it was possible that he might have been mistaken as to whether the voice was that of the defendant. He was then also asked who was present at the conversation of the 23rd and was asked where it occurred. Bailey replied that the conversation was in a certain store and that defendant and Vasquez were present. Bailey was further asked on cross-examination about his testimony at a preliminary hearing in the case and he stated that he did testify at the preliminary hearing and that prior to testifying at that hearing he had consulted his notes 'for the purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stevenson
...a confession was in fact made and there is no necessity for a preliminary hearing as to its voluntary character. In People v. Rose, 22 Ill.2d 185, 174 N.E.2d 673, 674 (1961), the second syllabus point is as follows: 'Where defendant, in a prosecution for illegally selling narcotics, specifi......
-
People v. Massamillo
...363, 369, 255 N.E.2d 405 (1970).Even 50 years ago, that particular statement of the law was not new or novel. See People v. Rose , 22 Ill. 2d 185, 186, 174 N.E.2d 673 (1961) ("We find it unnecessary to consider the defendant's contention that she was illegally arrested for it is settled tha......
-
Smith v. State
...there is authority for the proposition that an illegal arrest, in itself, in no way affects a judgment of conviction. People v. Rose (1961), 22 Ill.2d 185, 174 N.E.2d 673. The general rule also being that the jurisdiction of a court over the person of the defendant is not terminated by an i......
-
Rector v. State, 270S27
...there is authority for the proposition that an illegal arrest, in itself, in no way affects a judgment of conviction. People v. Rose (1961), 22 Ill.2d 185, 174 N.E.2d 673. The general rule also being that the jurisdiction of a court over the person of the defendant is not terminated by an i......