Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.


April 16, 1997


Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County. No. 95-CF-74. Honorable Kimberly L. Dahlen, Judge, presiding.

Rule 23 Order Redesignated Opinion and Ordered Published June 2, 1997.

The Honorable Justice Hopkins delivered the opinion of the court. Kuehn, P.j., and Welch, J., concur.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hopkins


This cause comes on to be heard on the People's Motion to Publish in the above-captioned cause. The Court being advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED that the motion be, and it hereby is GRANTED


The Honorable Justice HOPKINS delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Kumasi J. Barfield, appeals from the decision of the circuit court of Jackson County denying his motion to dismiss the charge against him of armed robbery. Defendant filed the motion to dismiss this charge, claiming that it was barred on the grounds of double jeopardy. Defendant claims that he was formerly tried before a jury on the same charge and that the trial court, Honorable David W. Watt Jr., presiding, improperly granted the State's motion for a mistrial over defendant's objection. On appeal, we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the mistrial. We affirm.


We note initially that defendant has not provided this court with a complete transcript of the jury trial that ended in a mistrial. Defendant's request for the report of the proceedings asks the court reporters to prepare only the transcript of the hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss and the portion of the jury trial consisting of the last witness through the end of the trial. Additionally, it appears that defendant submitted the same incomplete record of the jury trial to the trial court, Honorable Kimberly J. Dahlen presiding, on defendant's motion to dismiss.

It is defendant's duty as the appellant to provide this court with a complete record from which we may review his claims of error. People v. Schuppert, 217 Ill. App. 3d 715, 160 Ill. Dec. 503, 577 N.E.2d 828 (1991). Without an adequate record, the court of review is required to presume "every reasonable intendment against defendant," and "any factual questions concerning the adequacy of the evidence against defendant must therefore be resolved against the defendant." Schuppert, 217 Ill. App. 3d at 717. On review, where the record is inadequate to resolve the factual disputes, the court addresses only the legal questions presented by the appeal. Schuppert, 217 Ill. App. 3d at 717; see also Supreme Court Rule 608 (134 Ill. 2d R. 608). In the case at bar, we will address the factual questions to the extent of our ability to do so with an incomplete record.


We summarize the evidence from the portion of the jury trial defendant has provided. On the second day of the jury trial on the charge of armed robbery, Carbondale Police Detective Donald T. Barrett testified that he investigated an armed robbery that occurred on February 10, 1995. Barrett interviewed defendant and two other suspects after the robbery. According to Barrett, defendant told him about where he was and whom he was with on the night of the robbery, and defendant's version of the events of that night was consistent with the versions given by the other two suspects. Barrett also testified that the robbery victim "identified Mr. Barfield from a show-up line-up as being the person that actually committed the robbery with the gun" but that the victim could not identify the other two persons who were involved.

During cross-examination of Barrett, Paul Christenson, defendant's attorney, began questioning Barrett and arguing to the court, in the presence of the jury, about a videotape of defendant and the two other suspects. The videotape was allegedly made in the Old Town Liquor store shortly after the robbery but could not be found at the time of trial. The court sustained all of the State's objections to the relevance of the videotape.

Christenson then asked Barrett what time the robbery occurred, to which Barrett responded that he checked with the Bank of Carbondale officials and that they "pulled the records from the ATM machine and it showed--." The State objected to the testimony regarding the ATM records on the grounds of hearsay, and the trial court sustained the objection. Defense counsel continued to ask questions of Barrett concerning the time of the robbery, to which Barrett continued to respond about the ATM records, and objections were ...

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.