{
  "id": 2859395,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Catherine Heidman, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Heidman",
  "decision_date": "1967-11-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 40573",
  "first_page": "466",
  "last_page": "470",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 Ill. 2d 466"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill.2d 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2786129
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/11/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Ill.2d 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2789114
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/22/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill.2d 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2822579
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/29/0082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill.2d 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2880566
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/34/0206-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 294,
    "char_count": 4255,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.773,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.559510634918239e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5253777343775641
    },
    "sha256": "05cbfcd2552083e3a36b98ad33f9857e2a5124424d6ccf2360dfb9bda7a5f175",
    "simhash": "1:063337506b3b8d89",
    "word_count": 756
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:14.192691+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Catherine Heidman, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Catherine Heidman, was indicted for the offense of abortion. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, par. 23 \u2014 1.) She was represented by counsel of her own choice, tried by the court without a jury, found guilty, and placed on probation for 3 years, the first 90 days to be served in the House of Correction. On this appeal she does not dispute that the evidence was sufficient to establish her guilt, but does contend that her constitutional rights were violated because the trial judge did not impanel a jury to determine whether she was physically competent to stand trial, and because she did not understanding^ and voluntarily waive a jury trial.\nThese contentions stem from the following colloquy that took place when her case was called for trial:\n\u201cThe Court: Ready to proceed ?\nMr. Suth (Defendant\u2019s attorney) : Ready for trial by this Court, plea of not guilty, jury waived, your Honor.\nMr. Oplatka ('Assistant State\u2019s Attorney) : The \" State is ready.\nThe Court: Has the defendant been apprised of her rights to trial by jury?\nMr. Suth: Yes, sir.\nThe Court: Does she understand she has this right under the laws of the State of Illinois?\nMr. Suth: Yes.\nThe Court: And she does not desire to proceed with a jury?\nMr. Suth: No, sir.\nThe Court: Is that correct ?\nThe defendant: I am too sick.\nThe Court: Do you want your case tried by me as a judge without a jury?\nThe defendant: Yes.\nThe Court: You can have a jury, you know.\nThe defendant: Yes, sir.\nThe Court: Is your name Mrs. Heidman ?\nThe defendant: I am Miss. I am in very serious sickness, kidney trouble.\nThe Court: We will go into that in due course. I want this question satisfied.\nThe defendant: Yes.\nThe Court: Knowing of your legal right to a jury trial, do you wish to waive your right to a jury trial and submit your case to this Court without a jury? Do you understand my question ?\nMr. Suth: The Judge is saying, Catherine, do you want to have the Judge hear it alone or do you want a jury?\nThe defendant: No, just your Honor.\nThe Court: It is the same question I already asked you.\nThe defendant: Yes, your Honor.\nThe Court: We will have to ask you to sign a document which is a waiver of jury, which says, T, the undersigned,\u2019 etc. Will you kindly fill that out.\nThe defendant: Will you sign this for me.\nMr. Suth: You are going to have to sign it.\nThe defendant: I am so weak, so shaky, you know, so tired. May I sit down?\u201d\nA trial judge is required to conduct a hearing when he has reason to believe that the defendant is unable, because of a physical or mental condition, to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him and to assist in his defense. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, par. 104 \u2014 1, 104 \u2014 2; see also People v. Sims, 34 Ill.2d 206; People v. Wilson, 29 Ill.2d 82; People v. Cleggett, 22 Ill.2d 471; People v. Burson, 11 Ill.2d 360.\nOn behalf of the defendant it is urged that the quoted colloquy raised sufficient doubt as to her physical condition to require the trial judge to conduct a hearing to determine her competence to stand-trial and to waive a trial by jury. We do not agree. No one connected with the trial of the case seems to have felt any doubt as to the defendant\u2019s physical or mental competence. The trial judge and the defendant\u2019s attorney participated in the colloquy, and neither of them drew the inferences that the defendant\u2019s present attorneys seek to draw from what was then said by the defendant. There was no request for a continuance nor was there any reference during the trial to the defendant\u2019s physical condition.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMr. Justice Ward took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Julius Lucius Echeles and Jo-Anne F. Wolfson, both of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and James B. Zagel, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 40573.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Catherine Heidman, Appellant.\nOpinion filed November 30, 1967.\nWard, J., took no part.\nJulius Lucius Echeles and Jo-Anne F. Wolfson, both of Chicago, for appellant.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and James B. Zagel, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0466-01",
  "first_page_order": 470,
  "last_page_order": 474
}