{
  "id": 2853954,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Gloria Jenkins, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Jenkins",
  "decision_date": "1968-11-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 40486",
  "first_page": "334",
  "last_page": "336",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 334"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 3041,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.793,
    "sha256": "94dd28b360a4fbf1d38a2b67ed14d5e9fa268c63d7ad6931d25a7474e268a745",
    "simhash": "1:8c774bdb5eaceadd",
    "word_count": 507
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:11.612060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Gloria Jenkins, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Kluczynski\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant appeals a misdemeanor conviction had before a magistrate of the circuit court of Cook County contending that the court erred in denying a motion to provide an official court reporter for the trial. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether \u201cthe denial of an indigent\u2019s request that an official court reporter be provided to preserve a transcript of the trial is violative of the equal protection cause of the federal constitution.\u201d\nOn June 2, 1965, defendant was charged with \u201cshoplifting-theft\u201d in that she knowingly exerted unauthorized control over property of the value of $55, with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the use thereof. The case was continued several times at the defendant\u2019s request. The magistrate\u2019s written order submitted by the defendant and filed in the cause recites that the case was called to trial on October 18, 1966, witnesses for the State were present, that a bondsman informed the court that defendant\u2019s counsel was on trial in the criminal division of the circuit court, and he was informed that unless the defendant made her appearance, she would forfeit her bond. At 1 :oo P.M., defendant appeared and stated that her attorney was still engaged. The case was then continued to the following day, October 19. On that morning, defendant again said her attorney was busy and the cause was held for trial until he could be present. Counsel appeared at 2 :3o P.M. and the cause was called for trial at 4:45 P.M. He then orally requested the court to provide an official court reporter. He was told that if he had notified the court earlier, the court could have provided one. The jury was waived, defendant\u2019s objection was overruled and the case proceeded to trial. At 5 :3o P.M., the case was adjourned to October 24, 1966. On that day, counsel filed written \u201cObjection to trial without official reporter,\u201d renewing and reasserting the oral objection made on October 19 to being tried without benefit of an official court reporter and stating further that \u201cdefendant is at this time without funds to hire a privately retained court reporter.\u201d The magistrate informed defendant she could have a new trial instanter. This was refused and the case proceeded to a conclusion and the resultant conviction.\nWe need not pass upon the sole issue raised for the reason that defendant could have had a new trial instanter with a court reporter available. This she refused thereby waiving any constitutional claim in this regard. The 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 Kluczynski"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sam Adam and Edward Genson, both of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 40486.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Gloria Jenkins, Appellant.\nOpinion filed Nov. 22, 1968.\nRehearing denied Jan. 28, 1969.\nWard, J., took no part.\nSam Adam and Edward Genson, both of Chicago, for appellant.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0334-01",
  "first_page_order": 344,
  "last_page_order": 346
}