People v. Shipp, 67--89
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Citation | 239 N.E.2d 296,96 Ill.App.2d 364 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--89,67--89 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary E. SHIPP, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 28 June 1968 |
Page 296
v.
Gary E. SHIPP, Defendant-Appellee.
Page 297
George E. Sangmeister, State's Atty., Joliet, for appellant.
[96 Ill.App.2d 365] Francis J. Loughran, Joliet, for appellee.
SCHEINEMAN, Justice.
This is an appeal by the People from a court order which had the effect of suppressing evidence offered by the prosecution during a bench trial of a misdemeanor charge. The appellee questions the right of the State to take this appeal, a point which deserves to be considered. It was the law in this state for many years that the state had no right of appeal in a criminal case. The history of this law is reviewed in People v. Petropoulos, 59 Ill.App.2d 298, 208 N.E.2d 323, aff. 34 Ill.2d 179, 214 N.E.2d 765. The amended article VI of the Illinois Constitution, S.H.A. effective January 1, 1964, provides: 'after a trial on the merits in a criminal case, no appeal shall lie from a judgment of acquittal.' This appears to leave open to the legislature or the Supreme Court, the regulation of other appeals, not thereby prohibited.
At the time of the trial in this cause, the State's right to appeal was subject to Supreme Court Rule 604, Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, c. 110A, § 604 (formerly Rule 27, Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, c. 110, § 101.27). Included therein is the provision that the State may appeal from an order or judgment 'arresting judgment because of a defective indictment, information or complaint; quashing an arrest or search warrant; or suppressing evidence.' The Supreme Court may provide by rule for appeals to the Appellate Court from other than final judgments of the Circuit Court. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 7, People v. Lerch, 34 Ill.2d 305, 215 N.e.2d 257.
Since the defendant is normally furnished with the names of State witnesses in advance of trial, it would seem to be better practice to require that an objection to the testimony of a particular witness should be made before trial. However, we assume the trial judge felt the circumstances justified his recognition of the objection during the trial. It appears that when he sustained the defense objection, the trial judge then suspended [96 Ill.App.2d 366] further proceedings in the trial, thus giving the State an opportunity to perfect this appeal.
Considering the application of the quoted rule to this order of the trial court, it did have the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Savory, 81-465
...were present and there was no indicia of arrest. He may not be considered to be in custody at his school. (See People v. Shipp (1968), 96 Ill.App.2d 364, 239 N.E.2d 296.) Thereafter, he responded to a police request to come down to the police station to give his information to other officer......
-
Boynton v. Casey, Civ. 80-1055-B.
...the Court has found on the point are to the contrary. See In re Brendan, 82 Misc.2d 1077, 372 N.Y.S.2d 473 (1975); People v. Shipp, 96 Ill.App.2d 364, 239 N.E.2d 296 The third alleged impropriety in connection with the pre-suspension questioning is the failure to notify Boynton and his pare......
-
People v. Flatt, 52621
...on whether the trial judge believes that the effect of his ruling will be to block the prosecution entirely. (People v. Shipp (1968), 96 Ill.App.2d 364, 366, 239 N.E.2d 296; People v. Koch (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 386, 388, 304 N.E.2d 482.) (But see People v. Smith (1972), 5 Ill.App.3d 642, 64......
-
People v. Young, 52482
...value of the proffered items or testimony. In People v. Koch (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 386, 304 N.E.2d 482, and People v. Shipp (1968), 96 Ill.App.2d 364, 239 N.E.2d 296, the courts indicated that the State could appeal whenever an evidentiary ruling had the effect of blocking the prosecution. ......