{ "id": 2842791, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Anthony Thomas, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Thomas", "decision_date": "1969-11-26", "docket_number": "No. 41831", "first_page": "328", "last_page": "333", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "43 Ill. 2d 328" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "36 Ill.2d 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5378776 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/36/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ill.2d 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2863648 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/37/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "383 U.S. 375", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6171240 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "385" }, { "page": "822" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/383/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill.2d 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5362717 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/28/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ill.2d 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2833675 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Ill.2d 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5320336 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/9/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ill.2d 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2859395 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ill.2d 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5377101 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/36/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 Ill. App. 2d 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 Ill. App. 2d 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2900657 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/101/0333-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 608, "char_count": 9954, "ocr_confidence": 0.792, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.7064456148014043e-07, "percentile": 0.9288421834632058 }, "sha256": "bc592ac45eded8312e7fb7131884a94495ef8cd0c68f339a75b4bcc61d41987d", "simhash": "1:e0b3c001328ba0af", "word_count": 1664 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:11.222997+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Anthony Thomas, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAnthony Thomas, James Felder and his wife Anita Felder were indicted upon a charge of armed robbery by the grand jury of Cook County. Uncontradicted testimony of witnesses for the prosecution established that James Felder was disarmed and arrested on the spot during the course of an armed robbery of a grocery store. Anthony Thomas was arrested shortly thereafter in his apartment, located not far from the grocery store. He was identified as the other participant in the robbery. After Thomas had been arrested and taken back to the store, the police officers returned a second time to his apartment. At that time Anita Felder was searched, and a roll of bills corresponding in amount to the money taken from the store was found in her brassiere. These bills were introduced in evidence.\nAt the conclusion of the prosecution\u2019s case a verdict of not guilty was directed for Anita Felder. The jury returned verdicts of guilty as to Anthony Thomas and James Felder. Upon appeal the appellate court reversed the conviction of James Felder on the ground that a hearing should have been held to determine his competence to stand trial, but affirmed the conviction of Anthony Thomas. (101 Ill. App. 2d 333.) We granted Thomas\u2019s petition for leave to appeal.\nIn this court Anthony Thomas, hereinafter defendant, contends: first, that the trial court should have conducted a hearing to determine his competence to stand trial, and, second, that the roll of bills taken from the person of Anita Felder was the product of an illegal search, and was improperly admitted in evidence against him.\nAt the arraignment Anthony Thomas stated that his attorney was \u201cEl-elohe, the Lord God of Israel.\u201d James Felder stated that his name was Simeon Israel and he also said that his attorney was the \u201cLord God of Israel.\u201d The public defender was appointed to represent the three defendants. He moved to have the two men examined by the Behavior Clinic of the criminal court of Cook County. Separate reports filed by the examining psychiatrist diagnosed each man a sociopathic personality and concluded that each knew the nature of the charge and was capable of co-operating with his counsel.\nSo far as the defendant is concerned, the first portion of the report of the psychiatric examination related information received from a social agency that had known him as Anthony Thomas in i960. That information was that he was born in 1943, that he had made a rather poor school adjustment, and eventually dropped out of high school for financial reasons after completing years. Psychological testing in i960 had indicated low average intelligence. The report of the examining psychiatrist continued: \u201cHe was examined in a conference booth in the Cook County jail. He walked majestically to the booth wearing a turban. After seating himself, he stared at me, but did not smile. The blink reflex was decreased. Pie gave his name as \u2018Abendigo Ben Israel\u2019 which means the son of Jacob. When asked his age, he replied \u2018What age as far as being on this earth or what when long ago it was that God laid the foundation for the earth \u2014 how long ago was it that God commanded man from the dust to the earth \u2014 how old is the truth \u2014 how old is the tree \u2014 God is everywhere.\u2019 When asked his religious preference, he replied T face the East \u2014 my father is Abraham \u2014 Isaac\u2014God is universal \u2014 we live \u2014 do you question me about being here \u2014 why are you here \u2014 why do you question me.\u2019 The purpose of the interview was explained and he replied Tn other words to see if I am positive or negative.\u2019 He is in this building because he is accused of a robbery charge. He goes to court on the 10th before Judge Friedlund. His lawyer is \u2018My Lord God of Israel \u2014 the All Holy one \u2014 Most High.\u2019 He denies having been in a mental institution. When asked to sign an authorization so that would [sic] could obtain his past medical history, he asked, \u2018what name we wanted\u2019 and I told him his own name. He signed \u2018Anthony Thomas.\u2019 When told to leave, he arose and again majestically walked toward the bull pen with stately measured steps. Diagnosis: Sociopathic Personality Disturbance. He knows the nature of the charge and is able to cooperate with his counsel.\u201d\nBefore the trial commenced, the assistant public defender who represented them stated that he was unable to communicate with the defendants because of their religious hallucinations. His motion asking that a competency hearing be held was denied. At the conclusion of the prosecution\u2019s case, the defense offered testimony to show that Felder was insane at the time of the crime. Felder\u2019s wife testified that her husband had recently undergone a religious transformation which had resulted in a preoccupation with laudatory chanting and singing. Felder himself testified as to the revelations made to him by his God and indicated that his actions were directed by the God with whom he communicated directly. The trial judge called counsel to the bench and stated that a hearing would be held to determine both Felder\u2019s sanity and his competence to stand trial. A jury was subsequently impaneled, apparently to determine Felder\u2019s competence to stand trial, but that jury was then dismissed without hearing any testimony.\nThe appellate court concluded that the court should have proceeded with the competency hearing, since \u201cit is clear that during the course of the testimony of James Felder and Anita Felder, doubt arose in the mind of the court as to the ability of James Felder to stand trial.\u201d 101 Ill. App. 2d 339.\nThe Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a hearing to determine a defendant\u2019s competence should be held if either before or during trial \u201cthe court has reason to believe that the defendant is incompetent.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 38, par. 104 \u2014 2(a) (b).) The duty of the trial judge to hold such a hearing arises when, either from the court\u2019s own observations or upon the suggestion of counsel, a bona fide doubt is raised as to defendant\u2019s mental capacity. See, People v. Chatman, 36 Ill.2d 305 ; People v. Heidman, 38 Ill.2d 466.\nDefendant\u2019s counsel faced a formidable dilemma. His relationship with Thomas was not a voluntary one and the impetus that prompts co-operation with retained counsel was lacking. The consequence of a lack of co-operation, as this case illustrates, is to deny counsel access to defendant\u2019s knowledge of the factual basis of the charges against him, or to information that might refute those charges. On the other hand, the quality of counsel\u2019s representation is open to scrutiny in subsequent proceedings. To require counsel to attempt a defense without the defendant\u2019s co-operation thus imposes a substantial burden. Such a requirement should be imposed only when the defendant\u2019s unresponsiveness is not the result of a lack of mental capacity. Before a court allows a defendant to choose not to participate in his defense, the record must show that the choice was knowingly made by one who had the ability to co-operate and was able to understand the consequences of failing to do so.\nThere is no suggestion in the record that counsel\u2019s repeated references to the defendant\u2019s unwillingness to cooperate were not made in good faith. Those references are consistent with the pattern of defendant\u2019s behavior as exhibited at his arraignment, which took place before a judge other than the judge who tried the case. (See, Costas v. People, 9 Ill.2d 534.) This case stands in contrast to People v. Harper, 31 Ill.2d 51, where counsel never mentioned at trial the possibility of his client\u2019s incompetence, and People v. Foley, 28 Ill.2d 426, where counsel did no more than suggest his \u201cbelief\u201d \u2014 contradicted by defendant\u2019s trial performance \u2014 that his client was incompetent. In this case the implications of the defendant\u2019s incapacity raised by counsel are not refuted by any other evidence bearing on the defendant\u2019s mental condition. The initial Behavior Clinic report should not be viewed as conclusive in the presence of the continuing manifestations of abnormal behavior. (See, Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815, 822, 86 S. Ct. 836.) We conclude that the trial court should have undertaken a more detailed investigation of defendant\u2019s capacity in order to substantiate that his choice not to cooperate was knowingly made.\nThe defendant\u2019s original trial began in May, 1966. The hearing which should have been held would have determined his competence as of that date. Sufficient time has elapsed since then to make it doubtful that the evidence bearing upon his competence could be reconstructed if we were to remand for a hearing as to competence only. Consequently, we must reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the cause for a new trial in order that the defendant may have an opportunity to raise the question of his present competence. (See, Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815, 86 S. Ct. 836, People v. McLain, 37 Ill.2d 173; People v. Thompson, 36 Ill.2d 332.) This resolution makes it unnecessary to consider the defendant\u2019s contention concerning his motion to suppress certain evidence.\nThe judgment of the appellate court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court of Cook County for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nMr. Justice Ward took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Norman W. Fisiiman, James D. Hennings and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.", "William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (James B. Zagel, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and Michael D. Stevenson, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 41831.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Anthony Thomas, Appellant.\nOpinion filed November 26, 1969.\nWard, J., took no part.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Norman W. Fisiiman, James D. Hennings and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (James B. Zagel, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and Michael D. Stevenson, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0328-01", "first_page_order": 558, "last_page_order": 563 }