People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 23 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--106,71--106 |
| Citation | 5 Ill.App.3d 642,283 N.E.2d 736 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Eugene 'Pepper' SMITH, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Rehearing Denied June 22, 1972.
R. W. Griffith, State's Atty., Edwardsville, for appellant.
Murray A. Marks, Clayton, Mo., for appellee.
Defendant-Appellee was indicted on two counts of murder. He filed a pretrial motion to suppress the statement of Edward Lee Smart as to confessions allegedly made to him while both were inmates at the Madison County Jail prior to the indictment. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, without stating reasons, and the State has taken this appeal.
The defendant argues initially that the trial judge's ruling cannot be appealed by the State in the absence of a showing that otherwise the State will have insufficient evidence to proceed with its prosecution. We find no merit in this contention. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110A, § 604(a)(1), provides that 'the State may appeal only from an order or judgment, the substantive effect of which results in * * * suppressing evidence.' People v. Courtright, 129 Ill.App.2d 244, 263 N.E.2d 144 (1970). See also People v. Raddatz, 91 Ill.App.2d 425, 235 N.E.2d 353. We therefore deny the motion to dismiss this appeal, based on the alleged non-appealability of the order suppressing, which we have taken with the case.
The State argues that the decision of the trial court should be reversed. We agree. Smart was the only witness to testify on the motion and his testimony is uncontradicted. He testified that he had no contact with the State's Attorney or with Alton Police, to whom the confession was related, before the defendant made admissions to him. According to Smart, after the conversations with the defendant had taken place, the defendant asked Smart to speak with the State's Attorney to see what the State's Attorney would recommend if the defendant would plead guilty. Sometime after his conversation with the State's Attorney, the Alton police contacted him and he related to them what the defendant had told him about his involvement in the shooting for which the defendant was later indicated. The statements made by defendant to Smart were not post-indictment statements of an accused to a government agent. In People v. Milani, 39 Ill.2d 22, 233 N.E.2d 398, cert. den. 393 U.S. 865, 89 S.Ct. 148, 21 L.Ed.2d 134 (1968), the Court said:
'We do not believe that Massiah (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Flatt
...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, 643, 283 N.E.2d 736 (right to appeal does not require the State to show it would have insufficient evidence to proceed with the prosecut......
-
People v. Smith
...made by the defendant to Edward Smart while both were incarcerated in the Madison County Jail. This Court held in People v. Smith, 5 Ill.App.3d 642, 283 N.E.2d 736, that 'The statements made by defendant to Smart were not post-indictment statements of the accused to a government agent,' and......
-
State v. McCorgary
...rule declared in Massiah does not apply to voluntary statements of a defendant which are made to private citizens. (People v. Smith, 5 Ill.App.3d 642, 283 N.E.2d 736.) It has been held that if a defendant is injudicious in his conversations with fellow prisoners and the latter without prior......
-
State v. Rouse
... ... Smith, 223 Kan. 203, 207, 574 P.2d 548 (1977). The appellant raises the same objections to the M'Naghten rule as were discussed and rejected in Smith, 223 ... (People v. Smith, 5 Ill.App.3d 642, 283 N.E.2d 736.) It has been held that if a defendant is injudicious in his conversations with fellow prisoners and the ... ...