People v. Wright, 35526
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | SCHAEFER |
| Citation | 180 N.E.2d 689,24 Ill.2d 88 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Louis WRIGHT, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Docket Number | No. 35526,35526 |
| Decision Date | 23 January 1962 |
Page 689
v.
Louis WRIGHT, Plaintiff in Error.
Rehearing Denied March 23, 1962.
[24 Ill.2d 89] George W. McBurney and Frederic F. Brace, Jr., 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 Dean H. Bilton, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
SCHAEFER, Justice.
Four indictments were returned against Louis Wright in the criminal court of Cook County. The first charged rape and the second charged burglary in connection with that rape; the third charged rape of another woman and burglary in connection with that rape. He was convicted on each of the four indictments after bench trials and was sentenced to ten to twenty years on each burglary indictment and to life imprisonment on each rape indictment. All four sentences run concurrently, and all four judgments have been brought to this court upon a single writ of error. The grounds urged for reversal are common to all of the cases, the People have not objected, and we see nothing to be gained by requiring a separate writ of error to review each judgment.
The defendant orally confessed the crimes, and testimony as to his confessions was introduced in each case. All of his contentions in this court center upon the circumstances under which his confessions were obtained. He was [24 Ill.2d 90] arrested between 4:30 and 5:00 A.M. on March 22, 1957, by members of a Chicago Police Department 'Task Force' which had been sent into a neighborhood where there had been a series of rapes of white women by a negro man or men. When arrested the defendant was crouched on a second floor porch in the rear of an apartment building where he had fled from police who sought to question him. After his arrest he was first taken to the Englewood Police Station, where a showup was held and the two victims of the burglary-rapes identified the defendant as the man who had broken into their homes and raped them. The evidence is in conflict
Page 690
as to whether the defendant was taken directly to Central Police Headquarters from the Englewood Police Station or whether there was an intervening stop at another police station. He arrived at the Central Police Station at approximately 11:00 A.M. on March 22, 1957.The State's evidence indicates that the defendant was questioned at Central Police Headquarters briefly at 11:00 A.M., and also from 2:00 P.M. to 4:45 P.M. on Friday. The testimony of police officers, the assistant State's Attorney who took the defendant's unsigned confession in the Criminal Courts Building, and the court reporter who recorded it, is that the confession was made on Friday evening, March 22, at approximately 6:45 P.M.
The defendant, on the other hand, testified that he was not taken to the State's Attorney's office in the Criminal Courts Building until the afternoon of Saturday, March 23. At that time he refused to make a statement and was returned to Central Police Headquarters. He testified that he was again taken to the State's Attorney's office on Sunday, March 24, where his unsigned confession was taken in the presence of assistant State's Attorney Egan, Officer Cassidy, Paul Esling, a court reporter, and another unidentified officer. The defendant's account of what took place on Saturday and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Patterson, 70985
...that the officer threatened him with a gun and greater abuse unless he cooperated and gave a statement. (See People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill.2d 88, 93, 180 N.E.2d 689 (holding that materiality of witnesses in coerced-confession cases is not limited to those physically present when a confess......
-
People v. Brooks, 62869
...the rule requires the State to present the testimony of those who were present during the misconduct alleged. (People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill.2d 88, 93, 180 N.E.2d 689.) [115 Ill.2d 517] As we have said, two witnesses did not testify at the suppression hearing in this case: a youth officer......
-
People v. Cook, Gen. No. 50446
...it is questioned on the ground of coercion. And to meet this burden it must produce all witnesses material to the issue. People v. Wright, 24 Ill.2d 88, 180 N.E.2d 689. It is also true that if a first, oral confession is coerced, then a later otherwise voluntary written confession would be ......
-
People v. Bell, 76-317
...induced confessions. (People v. Smith, 56 Ill.2d 328, 333, 307 N.E.2d 353, 355 (1974).) "* * * As was stated in People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill.2d 88, 92, 180 N.E.2d 689, 691, 'The burden of proving that a confession is voluntary is one which the State must assume when the admissibility of ......
-
People v. Patterson, 70985
...that the officer threatened him with a gun and greater abuse unless he cooperated and gave a statement. (See People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill.2d 88, 93, 180 N.E.2d 689 (holding that materiality of witnesses in coerced-confession cases is not limited to those physically present when a confess......
-
People v. Brooks, 62869
...the rule requires the State to present the testimony of those who were present during the misconduct alleged. (People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill.2d 88, 93, 180 N.E.2d 689.) [115 Ill.2d 517] As we have said, two witnesses did not testify at the suppression hearing in this case: a youth officer......
-
People v. Cook, Gen. No. 50446
...it is questioned on the ground of coercion. And to meet this burden it must produce all witnesses material to the issue. People v. Wright, 24 Ill.2d 88, 180 N.E.2d 689. It is also true that if a first, oral confession is coerced, then a later otherwise voluntary written confession would be ......
-
People v. Bell, 76-317
...induced confessions. (People v. Smith, 56 Ill.2d 328, 333, 307 N.E.2d 353, 355 (1974).) "* * * As was stated in People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill.2d 88, 92, 180 N.E.2d 689, 691, 'The burden of proving that a confession is voluntary is one which the State must assume when the admissibility of ......