{
  "id": 2897022,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. James B. Smith, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1970-03-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 42239",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "94",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 91"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 4831,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.772,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5212529765248862
    },
    "sha256": "4553c5b5972ea40f0f76932cd5434f04cabee1c28330e6b936e52e50e85adc0f",
    "simhash": "1:8b836825644a34ca",
    "word_count": 768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:46:26.452896+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. James B. Smith, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "\"Mr. Chief Justi'ce Underwood\ndelivered the opinion of the court: -\n\" Def\u00e9ndant, James B. Smith, was convicted in a 1963 Cook County circuit court bench trial of taking indecent liberties With a child. In 1967, he filed a petition pro se .under . the. Post-Conviction Hearing: .Act (Ill. Rev. .Stat. 1967, ch. 38, pars. 122 \u2014 1 et seq.), claiming incompetency of the assistant public defender who served as court-appointed trial counsel. Private counsel was appointed for the post-conviction .proceedings, and the .amended petition alleged that the trial counsel was incompetent in failing to utilize a known and available alibi witness. The witness\u2019s affidavit supporting the alibi was attached to the petition. The State\u2019s motion to dismiss the amended petition was ..sustained, and defendant appeals on.-the grounds that the hearing court erred in the analytical process' utilized in reaching its determination, and that the determin\u00e1tion was manifestly erroneous.\n\u25a0 .At- trial, the complaining witness identified Smith as her ' assailant ; Smith denied guilt, claiming he had been at home with his. 5-year-old son and teenage stepson during the entire day in question. The stepson was present at the commencement of the trial, but was not present when the State sought to call him in rebuttal of Smith\u2019s alibi defense. The: defense objected to a request for a continuance to allow.the stepson to testify, and the court sustained the objection. In contrast to the affidavit of the stepson, the State offered the affidavit of an investigating police officer and that of defendant\u2019s original trial counsel; each stated that the .stepson had told them Smith had left home for a substantial, period-of time on the day of the assault. ...\nThe judge at the hearing on Smith\u2019s petition was nop; the judge in his bench trial. Smith claims .that the dismissal of. his petition was prompted by the hearing judge\u2019s conclusion that an alibi witness would not have altered the trial, judge\u2019s opinion of Smith\u2019s guilt.. This notion is advanced in regard to the hearing judge\u2019s .comments, generally, to the effect that the trial judge may have refused the State\u2019s motion for a continuance because of a feeling there was no need for further prosecution evidence to rebut Smith\u2019s alibi. It was in this context that the hearing judge made such statements as \u201c* * * the Court, I would say, felt' that it wouldn\u2019t make any difference to him if the stepson came in and testified the way they \u2022 [the' State]' wanted him or felt he would testify * * The hearing judge acknowledged, in response to a direct question by counsel, that the basis for his ruling was the belief that the trial judge\u2019s, determination,. based on \u2019 substantial circumstantial evideric\u00e9 as well as the victim\u2019s identification, would not have been altered By the-testimony of the stepson, This belief was furthered by consideration of- the-affidavits\u2019of the trial counsel and the investigating officer, as well as a review of the trial record, and prompted the hear-, ing judge, to rule, in effect, that trial counsel\u2019s decision not-to. call the stepson to testify was a legitimate and reasonable' matter of trial strategy, rather than evidence of incompetence. Notwithstanding defendant\u2019s inferences to the contrary, the hearing court\u2019s statements do not evidence a conclusion that no amount of alibi testimony could possibly have altered the verdict at trial. The narrow issue on which the hearing judge necessarily ruled was the question of trial counsel\u2019s incompetence in deciding not to call the stepson to testify.\nWhile it would not have been improper for the post-conviction judge to- have required oral testimony at the hearing upon defendant\u2019s amended petition, we cannot say that such action was essential. The governing statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 122 \u2014 6) specifically provides that the court \u201cmay receive proof by affidavits.\u201d The affidavits of the investigating officer and defendant\u2019s trial counsel clearly establish that the reason trial counsel did not call the stepson, and opposed the State\u2019s request for a continuance to enable it to do so, was not the result of any incompetence on the part of counsel.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is accordingly affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMr. Justice Ward took no part in the consideration- or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "\"Mr. Chief Justi'ce Underwood"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u25a0John W. Stack, of Chicago, appointed by the court, 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 \u00a3. Kissane and Joseph Romano, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of .counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 42239.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. James B. Smith, Appellant.\nOpinion filed March 24, 1970.\nWard, J., took no part.\n\u25a0John W. Stack, of Chicago, appointed by the court, 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 \u00a3. Kissane and Joseph Romano, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of .counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 104
}