People v. Rose
| Decision Date | 01 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43326,43326 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Joseph ROSE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Charlotte Adelman and Philip M. Basvic, Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert A. Novelle and Terry M. Gordon, Senior Law Student, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
Petitioners, Joseph Rose and Hugo Matters, appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County denying their petition for relief filed under the provisions of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, 122--1 et seq.) Rule 651(a), Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, c. 110A, § 651(a), provides for appeal directly to this court.
This is the second appeal in this case. (See People v. Rose, 43 Ill.2d 273, 253 N.E.2d 456.) After hearing the evidence as directed by our mandate the trial court again denied the petition and this appeal followed. The facts are reviewed at length in our earlier opinion and will be restated here only to the extent necessary to discuss the issues raised on appeal.
Petitioners' first assignment of error arises from the efforts to take the discovery depositions of the circuit judge who conducted the bench trial, his bailiff, and the assistant State's Attorney who tried the case. The record shows these individuals were given notice to appear for deposition and failed to appear. Petitioners, alleging that a post-conviction proceeding is civil in nature moved for 'relief pursuant to Rule 219,' which motion the trial court denied.
Petitioners contend that this court has held (see People v. Alden, 15 Ill.2d 498, 155 N.E.2d 617) that a post-conviction hearing is civil in nature, that our Rules with respect to discovery (Supreme Court Rule 201 et seq.) apply, the refusal to order the witnesses to appear for deposition deprived petitioners of the opportunity to properly prepare for cross-examination and they were thereby prejudiced. They cite the provisions of section 6 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, par. 122--6) to support the contention that depositions are to be taken as in other civil proceedings. They argue the trial court should have excluded the testimony of Judge Landesman, the trial judge, and discharged the defendants.
In our opinion section 6 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act contemplates the use of evidence depositions. As with not refer to discovery depositions. As with many orders for discovery and the imposition of sanctions for failure to comply therewith, the trial court's refusal to order the witnesses to appear for deposition was an exercise of the court's discretionary powers and its decision should not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion. The witnesses appeared, testified and were cross-examined at length. Under the circumstances shown in this record, the refusal to order the witnesses to appear for deposition was not an abuse of discretion.
In the bench trial of this case, during recross-examination of the complaining witness, defense counsel attempted to question her regarding her failure to make a complaint to her roommate upon her return to her home after the alleged offense. Because the essential issue at the trial was one of consent, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lockhart v. State
...proceedings. SeePeople ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill. 2d 175, 183, 121 Ill. Dec. 937, 526 N.E.2d 131 (1988); People v. Rose, 48 Ill. 2d 300, 302, 268 N.E.2d700 (1971). A court must exercise this authority with caution, however, because a defendant may attempt to divert attention away......
-
Hall v. State
...proceedings. See People ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill.2d 175, 183, 121 Ill.Dec. 937, 526 N.E.2d 131 (1988); People v. Rose, 48 Ill.2d 300, 302, 268 N.E.2d 700 (1971). A court must exercise this authority with caution, however, because a defendant may attempt to divert attention away ......
-
Davis v. State
...proceedings. SeePeople ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill.2d 175, 183, 121 Ill.Dec. 937, 526 N.E.2d 131 (1988); People v. Rose, 48 Ill.2d 300, 302, 268 N.E.2d 700 (1971). A court must exercise this authority with caution, however, because a defendant may attempt to divert attention away f......
-
Lockhart v. State
...proceedings. SeePeople ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill. 2d 175, 183, 121 Ill. Dec. 937, 526 N.E.2d 131 (1988); People v. Rose, 48 Ill. 2d 300, 302, 268 N.E.2d 700 (1971). A court must exercise this authority with caution, however, because a defendant may attempt to divert attention awa......