People v. Speice

Decision Date22 September 1961
Docket NumberNo. 36288,36288
Citation23 Ill.2d 40,177 N.E.2d 233
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Edward SPEICE, Plaintiff in Error.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Julius Lucius Echeles, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Gallagher and James R. Thompson, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

KLINGBIEL, Justice.

Following a conviction of the crime of burglary in the criminal court of Cook County the defendant Edward Speice, sued out a writ of error from this court to review the judgment of conviction. On this writ of error the defendant contends that his motion to suppress certain evidence should have been allowed, that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the voluntary character of a confession, that the trial court improperly limited the defendant's right to cross-examine a prosecution witness, and that evidence of another crime was introduced against the defendant.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress the defendant testified that at about midnight on the night in question he was arrested as the parked his car in front of his home. He asked the officers whether they had a warrant and they said they did not need one. He told the officers that if they had a warrant they could search his house but if they had no warrant they could not. The defendant testified that in spite of his objection the officers took him into his house at gun point and proceeded to search the house against his wishes. The defendant testified that he lived in the apartment with his wife, his son and his sister-in-law. A police officer testified that he received an anonymous telephone call from a woman who said, 'You wish to get two guys with some hot property? Well, there are two fellows who took in some property at 2453 West Berteau earlier this evening.' After the call the witness and two other officers went to that address at about 11:20 p. m. The witness rang the bell and Mrs. Speice opened the door and asked the officers to come in. The witness asked Mrs. Speice if her husband had brought in any property earlier that evening and she said that he had and asked if the officers would like to see the property. They went into a bedroom where Mrs. Speice stated the property had been brought by her husband earlier that evening and the witness saw three portable piano-organs, a portable television set, a brown attache case and an electric welding outfit. According to this witness Mrs. Speice told him that she had had an argument earlier that evening about bringing the property into the apartment and that she had told him to get the stuff out of the apartment immediately because she didn't want to get involved with the police. The witness further testified that after this search he and the other officers left the house and parked their car a short distance away to await the return of the defendant. At about 2:00 a. m. they saw the defendant drive up to his house and the officers placed him under arrest. They then went to the apartment and asked the defendant where the articles were that had been brought in that night and the defendant pointed to the bedroom where the officers had previously found the property. The witness testified that defendant objected to them removing a fan since he claimed that he paid for it and it wasn't 'hot.' Mrs. Speice testified in rebuttal that when the officers first came to the apartment they asked if the defendant was there. When she replied that he was not they asked if they could come in and she said that they could. According to Mrs. Speice the officers left without making a search. She denied taking the officers to a bedroom and pointing out the merchandise and denied that she told the officers that she was angry at her husband for bringing in stolen merchandise.

The defendant contends that the property discovered as a result of this search was improperly admitted in evidence. Two alternative contentions are advanced. First it is argued that even if Mrs. Speice did freely consent to a search of the premises, her consent was insufficient to waive the constitutional right of her husband to be free from an illegal search of his property. In our opinion this contention can not be sustained in view of our holdings in People v. Shambley, 4 Ill.2d 38, 122 N.E.2d 172 and People v. Perroni, 14 Ill.2d 581, 153 N.E.2d 578. In both of these cases the evidence showed that the premises were jointly owned by the husband and wife and we held that the consent of the wife to a search of the premises was sufficient to waive the husband's constitutional immunity. In Shambley we said, 4 Ill.2d 38, 42, 122 N.E.2d 172, 174, 'the rule seems to be well established that where two persons have equal rights to the use or occupation of premises, either may give consent to a search and the evidence thus disclosed can be used against either.' This language was cited with approval in the Perroni case. In the present case the defendant's motion to suppress alleged that the premises were occupied by defendant and his wife and this allegation was supported by defendant's own testimony at the hearing on the motion. We are of the opinion that the joint occupancy of the apartment by the defendant and his wife is sufficient to bring this case within the rule set forth in Shambley and Perroni. Therefore, if the defendant's wife freely consented to a search of the premises, the consent was sufficient to waive the defendant's immunity.

The second alternative argued by the defendant in support of his contention that the search was illegal is that the consent of the wife was not freely given but was the result of an implied coercion on the part of the police officers. In support of this contention the defendant relies strongly upon Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654, and People v. Lind, 370 Ill. 131, 18 N.E.2d 189. In these cases it was held that the circumstances showed that the consent of the wife was not freely given but was the result of implied coercion brought about by the presence of the police officers. In both of these cases there was a conflict in the testimony as to whether the wife in fact consented. The defendant points out that there is such a conflict in the present case and argues that because of this conflict in the testimony this case should be covered by Lind and Amos rather than Shambley...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • State v. Evans
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1962
    ...against either. See People v. Shambley, 4 Ill.2d 38, 122 N.E.2d 172; People v. Perroni, 14 Ill.2d 581, 153 N.E.2d 578; People v. Speice, 23 Ill.2d 40, 177 N.E.2d 233; cf., the earlier case of People v. Lind, 370 Ill. 131, 18 N.E.2d 189, distinguished in the later cases on the ground that in......
  • State v. Shephard
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1963
    ...Mr. Shephard gave his consent freely and voluntarily. The Illinois Supreme Court considered this specific problem in People v. Speice, 23 Ill.2d 40, 177 N.E.2d 233, 235, in which defendant claimed the consent of the wife was not freely given but was the result of implied coercion on the par......
  • People v. Nunn
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 1, 1973
    ...839; People v. Palmer (1962), 26 Ill.2d 464, 187 N.E.2d 236; People v. Stacey (1962), 25 Ill.2d 258, 184 N.E.2d 866; People v. Speice (1961), 23 Ill.2d 40, 177 N.E.2d 233; People v. Perroni (1958), 14 Ill.2d 581, 153 N.E.2d 578; People v. Shambley (1954), 4 Ill.2d 38, 122 N.E.2d The theory ......
  • People v. Knox
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 15, 1967
    ...true sense of the word confessions, nevertheless they were inculpatory. The court disregarded some previous decisions (People v. Speice, 23 Ill.2d 40, 177 N.E.2d 233, and People v. Stanton, 16 Ill.2d 459, 158 N.E.2d 47), and pointed out that in People v. Hiller, 2 Ill.2d 323, 118 N.E.2d 11,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT