Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Hines

SEPTEMBER 25, 1967.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

ROBERT S. HINES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Criminal Division; the Hon. HERBERT R. FRIEDLUND, Judge, presiding. Reversed and remanded with directions. MR. JUSTICE BURMAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

The defendants were jointly indicted for the crime of burglary and after a plea of not guilty they were tried and found guilty by a jury. They were sentenced to terms in the Illinois State Penitentiary as follows: Willie S. Terry, 6 to 10 years; Robert S. Hines, 4 to 10 years; and Henry R. Clay, 4 to 10 years. The defendants appeal and contend (1) that the court erred in admitting evidence of a lie detector test, and (2) that the court erred in admitting evidence of incompetent and prejudicial matter.

The record indicates that upon the opening of the beauty shop at 4309 South Berkeley, at 8:30 a.m. on June 13, 1964, an employee found the premises were burglarized and an electric stove, irons, hair oil, dyes, spools of thread, a hair dryer and other items were missing. A next door neighbor testified that at 12:30 a.m. she heard a noise, saw a light go on and off inside the back of the beauty shop and saw defendants, Hines and Terry, whom she knew, coming from the rear of the beauty shop carrying shopping bags. Another resident residing two doors from the shop testified that she saw defendant Clay who was carrying a hair dryer, enter a cab about 12:30 a.m. on the morning in question and defendant Terry carrying a bag enter the same cab. A third neighbor testified that he saw Hines, Terry and Clay and another man with two bags which contained items identical to those of the burglarized store.

The defendants, Hines and Clay, denied participation in the burglary. Upon direct examination defense counsel asked defendant Hines about a previous felony conviction and he admitted that he was convicted of possession of narcotics on May 27, 1957, and had served 21 months in the penitentiary. On cross-examination by the prosecutor the following occurred:

Q. In 1957 you were convicted of possession of narcotics, is that right?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Were you addicted to narcotics at that time?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And do you still use narcotics?

A. No.

Mr. Nelson: Objection. That is not relevant to this cause.

Mr. Martwick: Oh, Judge —

The Court: It affects his credibility. He may ask it.

Mr. Martwick: Q. What type narcotics were you addicted to?

Mr. Nelson: We object to this now. He just asked if he was addicted and he has answered.

The Court: He may ask.

Mr. Martwick: Q. What type narcotics were you addicted to?

A. Heroin.

Q. What type habit did you have in 1957?

A. It was small.

Q. When you say "small" how much were you using a day?

Mr. Nelson: We object to that. He has gone into that. That is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.