People v. Schmidt
| Decision Date | 29 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 45694,45694 |
| Citation | 56 Ill.2d 572,309 N.E.2d 557 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Alice L. SCHMIDT, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield , for the People.
A. J. Marco and Anthony F. Mannina, Downers Grove, for appellee.
The defendant, Alice L. Schmidt, was arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code, section 11--501 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11--501). She sought pretrial discovery of an alcoholic-influence report and any police reports containing observations and statements. The alcoholic-influence report contained results of a breathalyzer test and was furnished to defendant as a chemical test pursuant to section 11--501(g). Also made available to defendant was the video tape of defendant presumably made upon her arrival at the police station following her arrest. The prosecutor, however, refused to disclose, prior to trial, a Driving While Intoxicated Arrest Report, characterizing it as a routine police report of the facts of the arrest and not subject to pretrial discovery in a misdemeanor case, although agreeing to its production at trial for impeachment purposes. The trial court examined the arrest report In camera, held it to be 'an extension of the visual' and a 'supplemental alcoholic influence report' and therefore discoverable. The State refused to comply with the order to furnish the report to defendant prior to trial. The trial court thereupon entered an order excluding all information contained in the report from use at trial. The trial judge's comments indicate he believed this court would ultimately be 'forced' to extend application of the discovery rules to misdemeanor cases, and was exercising his discretion in extending them in this case. In reversing the trial court the Appellate Court for the Second District (People v. Schmidt, 8 Ill.App.3d 1024, 291 N.E.2d 225) held discovery rules were inapplicable since the charge in this case did not carry with it the possibility of imprisonment in the penitentiary. We allowed leave to appeal.
Defendant contends that while the rules of discovery are mandatory in application to cases where penitentiary imprisonment is possible, discretion remains with the trial courts as to application of those rules to misdemeanors. Our Rule 411, Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, § 411, in relevant part provides: 'These rules shall be applied in all criminal cases wherein the accused is charged with an offense for which, upon conviction, he might be imprisoned in the penitentiary.' 50 Ill.2d R. 411.
Prior to the adoption of these rules, criminal discovery was governed solely by case law and statutory provisions. Substantial variations in the scope of discovery permitted among the several circuits and even among judges in the same circuits prompted this court to appoint a committee of experienced lawyers and judges for the purpose of formulating criminal discovery rules for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People of The State of Ill. v. KLADIS
...The State had not yet produced the requested materials and defendant made an oral motion for discovery under People v. Schmidt, 56 Ill.2d 572, 309 N.E.2d 557 (1974), including any videotapes. Not all police cars have a video recording device, so the State asked the arresting officer whether......
- People v. Queen
-
People v. Shukovsky
... ... We further observe that, in any event, the defendant, charged with a misdemeanor, had no right to discovery. See 107 Ill.2d R. 411; People v. Schmidt (1974), 56 Ill.2d 572, 309 N.E.2d 557 ... The appellate court stated that, as there was no court reporter at the hearing on the State's motion to quash the defendant's subpoena and no transcript of the proceeding, it could not review the correctness of the order to comply. It ... ...
-
People v. Menssen
... ... Third, the supreme court rules regarding discovery do not apply to misdemeanor cases. (People v. Schmidt (1974), 56 Ill.2d 572, 574-75, 309 N.E.2d 557, 558; People v. Elbus (1983), 116 Ill.App.3d 104, 107, 71 Ill.Dec. 635, 637, 451 N.E.2d 603, 605; 134 Ill.2d R. 411.) Fourth, the State did not attempt to introduce this document into evidence or ask Miller about it. Instead, Miller referred to it ... ...
-
PART 2 - CHAPTER 8 Discovery and Disclosure
...FRCrP 1 states that the "rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the Unites States district courts. . . ."[46] 56 Ill. 2d 572, 575 (1974).[47] People v. Kladis, 960 N.E.2d 1104 (Ill. 2011). [48] 18 U.S.C. §3432.[49] Illinois Supreme Court Rule 417. ...