People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 20 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 38035,38035 |
| Citation | 198 N.E.2d 833,30 Ill.2d 622 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Edward A. SMITH, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
R. Eugene Pincham and Charles B. Evins, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
Culminating a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County, the defendant, Edward A. Smith, was convicted of the crimes of armed robbery and attempted murder and sentenced to the penitentiary for concurrent terms of 5 to 20 years. On this direct appeal he contends that the trial court erred in refusing to order the People to produce a written report of a police officer who had participated in the investigation of the crimes, and that error was committed in various rulings on evidence.
The People have raised the question of our jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and, inasmuch as this court has only such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by law, our first determination must be whether the appeal presents a question or questions arising under the State of Federal constitution. (See: Const. of Ill., art. VI, sec. 5, as amended January 1, 1964, S.H.A.; Supreme Court rule 28-1, 28 Ill.2d xxviii.) None of the complaints relating to rulings on evidence are based upon constitutional grounds, thus that matter of our jurisdiction is made to depend on whether the refusal of the court to direct the production of a police report causes a constitutional question to arise. We think it clear that it does not.
As may be seen from Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414, 73 S.Ct. 369, 97 L.Ed. 447, Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103, and Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 79 S.Ct. 1217, 3 L.Ed.2d 1287, the rule requiring the prosecution to produce documents or statements for use by an accused for impeachment purposes does not stem from any constitutional command, but is merely a rule of procedure based upon what one court has described as a 'right sense of justice.' (People v. Walsh, 262 N.Y. 140, 186 N.E. 422.) In like manner, when this court first adopted the rule in People v. Moses, 11 Ill.2d 84, 142 N.E.2d 1, and later embraced the method of applying it and the limitations thereon employed by the Federal statute and courts, (see: People v. Wolff, 19 Ill.2d 318, 167 N.E.2d 197,) we did so not through the force of the Federal or State contitution but from a desire to employ what 'reason and experience' (Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414, 419, 73 S.Ct. 369, 97 L.Ed. 447, 454,) had demonstrated to be the better rule of practice. Accordingly, while there may be an indirect and remote...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hicks
...process of law is not a guaranty against erroneous rulings or decisions. People v. Estep, 409 Ill. 125, 97 N.E.2d 823; People v. Smith, 30 Ill.2d 622, 198 N.E.2d 833. In our opinion the judge's conversations with Mrs. Washington, one of which was in open court, did not give cause for his di......
- People v. Lewis
-
People v. DeStefano
... ... do not present a substantial constitutional question giving us jurisdiction. Both motions were directed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the only issue on appeal is the correctness of its rulings. An issue of this character raises no constitutional question. Cf. People v. Smith, 30 Ill.2d 622, 198 N.E.2d 833 ... Since there are no issues raised which afford this court jurisdiction, the cause is transferred to the ... ...