People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 07 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--136,72--136 |
| Citation | 12 Ill.App.3d 295,297 N.E.2d 625 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmie Lee SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Robert E. Farrell, Dist. Defender, Ill. Defender Project, Mt. Vernon, for defendant-appellant; James Homola, Senior Law Student, University of California, of counsel.
Robert H. Rice, State's Atty., Belleville, for plaintiff-appellee; Richard F. Nash, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel.
Defendant appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Clair County which found him guilty, by jury verdict, of the offenses of rape, armed robbery, and attempted murder. He was sentenced to not less than five nore more than ten years for the offenses of armed robbery and attempted murder and not less than 15 nor more than 30 years for the rape. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Prior to trial, the defendant made a motion to suppress from evidence a pistol which had been seized by the police in an alleged illegal search and seizure. Herman Butler, an East. St. Louis Police Officer, testified at the hearing on the motion that he and his partner, Officer Charles Vaughn, were on routine patrol on the night in question. In the early morning hours, at approximately 2:00 a.m., the two officers drove past a parked car. They noticed two feet hanging over the front seat of the car. Although neither Butler nor Vaughn were explicit in this regard, it is evident that they suspected that an illicit act of intercourse, or possibly a rape, might be occurring.
Both officers testified that they got out of their own vehicle and each proceeded to position himself on opposite sides of the suspect car. They asked the occupants, a man and a woman, to get out. As they were getting out, or immediately thereafter, one of the officers, by shining his flashlight into the vehicle, spotted a gun which had been resting at the foot of the defendant while he was in the back seat of the car. While Officer Vaughn entered the vehicle to seize the firearm, the defendant fled from the scene.
At the end of the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial judge took the matter under advisement. However, the record fails to reveal any explicit or clear ruling before, or during, trial in regard to the suppression of the gun.
During the trial, both police officers were allowed to testify extensively in regard to the gun, over the strenuous objection of the defense counsel. The gun was subsequently identified, through a ballistics experts, as the weapon which had been used in the shooting and robbery of one Clanthie Green and the rape of his female companion.
Also, during the trial, the state's attorney twice made reference to the fact that the defendant was charged with murder. The present proceedings charged the defendant only with 'attempted' murder.
During the trial, over the objection of the defendant's attorney, the state's attorney asked Officer Vaughn the following question and received a potentially prejudicial response:
State's Attorney: Now, Officer Vaughan, what information did you receive, sir?
Witness: I received information from Detective Tolden that Jimmie Lee Smith was wanted for investigation by our department and for parole violation.
The defense attorney immediately moved for mistrial on the grounds that the mention of previous convictions was inflammatory and prejudicial, particularly in light of the heinous, violent character of the crimes with which the defendant was charged. The court's response was:
'The court is not going to explain to the jury and the jury will not be told to disregard the statement as to why the police officers were informed to pick up this man.'
Defendant contends (1) that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to give a clear ruling before or during trial on his motion to suppress; (2) that the gun was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cortes
... ... One of the Gama brothers used to pay defendant for anal intercourse. On Saturday, February 2, 1991, defendant told Torres and another man that he was going to "go by the Mexicans, get high with them and do them up." Armed with a ".38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver," defendant arrived at the Gamas' apartment at about 10 p.m. and for the next few hours the three men drank beer and smoked marijuana and PCP. The brothers began to caress defendant, rubbing his crotch and buttocks. Defendant told the men several times to "leave me alone or I ... ...
-
People v. Precup
... ... It is not argued that the State's Attorney sought to, or did elicit, the testimony as was the fact noted in The People v. Colston (1967), 81 Ill.App.2d 75, 225 N.E.2d 801; The People v. Pitts (1971), 1 Ill.App.3d 120, 273 N.E.2d 664; The People v. Smith (1973), 12 Ill.App.3d 295, 297 N.E.2d 625. The record shows colloquy concerning the court's offer to admonish the jury to disregard the statement and counsel's agreement that such admonition should not be made ... [8 Ill.Dec. 623] Here, the identification was positive. The ... ...
-
People v. Henenberg
... ... [37 Ill.App.3d 469] Colston, 81 Ill.App.2d 75, 225 N.E.2d 801 (1967); People v. Pitts, 1 Ill.App.3d 120, 273 N.E.2d 664 (1971); People v. Hawkins, 4 Ill.App.3d 471, 281 N.E.2d 72 (1972); People v. Hudson, 7 Ill.App.3d 333, 287 N.E.2d 297 (1972); People v. Smith, 12 Ill.App.3d 295, 297 N.E.2d 625 (1973) ... In the circumstances before us whether defendant became acquainted with the witnesses in the penitentiary does not appear to have independent relevance to the issues involved in the crimes of murder and armed robbery charged against the ... ...
- People v. Carter