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 Ex Rel. Paul v. Harvey

DECEMBER 1, 1972.

THE PEOPLE EX REL. MARY PAUL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

ROBERT HARVEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. THOMAS BARRETT, Judge, presiding.

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE LORENZ DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

On behalf of Mary Paul, the State of Illinois brought a paternity action against defendant Robert Harvey pursuant to Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 106 3/4. The complaint alleged that defendant was the father of a child, David Patrick Paul, born to Mary Paul out of wedlock. At trial, a jury found defendant not guilty and judgment was entered accordingly.

Appellant contends that certain errors were made in conducting the trial. Specifically, appellant contends that: (1) the trial court should have dismissed the jury or returned it for further deliberations when, upon polling, a juror dissented from the verdict; (2) plaintiff's counsel should have been permitted to comment on anticipated instructions during closing arguments; and (3) the trial court should have permitted plaintiff's counsel to make legal arguments for the record outside the presence of the jury.

The record contains the following facts relevant to appellant's first contention. During the polling of the jury, the following colloquy occurred between the court and a juror:

"THE COURT: Is this and was this your verdict?

JUROR: Well, it wasn't exactly, no.

THE COURT: Did you sign this?

JUROR: Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Then it's your verdict."

After the polling of the jury, the court accepted the jury's verdict without objection by plaintiff's counsel.

The record indicates the following facts relevant to appellant's second contention relating to final arguments. Sometime after a conference on instructions, plaintiff's counsel made the following statement during his final argument.

"Now I would like for a moment to discuss with you the Court's instructions which I believe will be given to you. I believe — "

Defense counsel's objection to this language was sustained by the court, which stated:

"You have no right to discuss or presume or assume what instructions will be given. Therefore, the objection is sustained as to discussing the instructions that ...


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.