{ "id": 1578936, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Hopkins and Marvin Martin, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hopkins", "decision_date": "1970-05-22", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 69-151", "first_page": "415", "last_page": "420", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "124 Ill. App. 2d 415" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "228 NE2d 505", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 Ill App2d 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2556465 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/83/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 NE2d 805", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Ill2d 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2878788 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/34/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 NE2d 490", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill2d 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2865248 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/37/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 NE2d 697", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Ill2d 4", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2857846 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/40/0004-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 NE2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "399 Ill 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2460547 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/399/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 NE2d 802", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "409 Ill 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 NE2d 330", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill App2d 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5291806 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/66/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 NE2d 579", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 Ill App2d 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2821666 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/100/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 US 123", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767670 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0123-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 550, "char_count": 8128, "ocr_confidence": 0.61, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.544900371911586e-07, "percentile": 0.8849846072106906 }, "sha256": "ed6f2cbac8b5a3eba1ff5082f743513259b98e72f15d330c9e6d6d6873c9e563", "simhash": "1:6d5b8153eee6b376", "word_count": 1403 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:07.974938+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Hopkins and Marvin Martin, Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MORAN, P. J.\nDefendants, Ronald Hopkins and Marvin Martin, were jointly tried and convicted of theft from the person (Ill Rev Stats 1969, c 38, \u00a7 16-1) in a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Randolph County and were sentenced to terms of three to seven years in the State Penitentiary. They appeal.\nMrs. Fern Deterding testified that about twelve, noon, on October 6, 1967, she was shopping in the Voss Grocery Store in Red Bud, Illinois. She had just left the bank across the street and was carrying two bank envelopes in her purse, one containing $1,000 and the other containing $822. As she approached the check-out counter, there were three Negro boys behind her. As she walked toward the doorway, one of the boys ran ahead of her. He dropped some change in the doorway and she had to stop and wait for him to pick it up. While she was waiting, the other two stepped behind her and began nudging her on both sides. She thought they were \u201conly getting fresh.\u201d She identified the defendants as the two boys who had been standing behind her in the doorway. After they let her through the door, she walked straight to the post office where she discovered that the bank envelope which had contained $822 was missing. She still had the envelope containing the $1,000. She did not see any one of them or anyone else actually take the bank envelope from her purse. She remembers seeing the envelope in her purse while standing at the check-out counter and she knows that the money was missing when she arrived at the post office immediately after she left the grocery store. The money in the envelope allegedly stolen consisted of one, five, ten and twenty dollar bills.\nThe defendants and a third boy were arrested in the afternoon of October 6 near Columbia, Illinois, in Monroe County, and taken to the Columbia Police Station, where their car was impounded. A subsequent search of the car pursuant to a search warrant disclosed $924 under the front seat of their car. On October 7, 1967, defendant Martin signed a written statement admitting that on October 6 he, the defendant, Hopkins, and one Michael Johnson were in Red Bud, Illinois. They drove to a grocery store, but only Hopkins and Johnson went inside. They returned in about five minutes and had a brown paper bag containing a small purchase and a large sum of money in fives, tens and twenties. Martin inquired where they got the money and they answered that they had found it. Martin stated that at no time did he enter the grocery store. His statement was admitted into evidence against both defendants.\nHopkins contends that it was reversible error to admit Martin\u2019s statement as evidence against him. Hopkins was not present when Martin gave the statement, nor did he assent to it. Not only does this statement constitute inadmissible hearsay, but where the defendant giving the statement does not take the stand and admit giving the statement, its admission violates the other defendant\u2019s right to cross-examination secured by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. Bruton v. United States, 391 US 123. The prosecution argues that defendant, Hopkins failed to object to its admission against him at the trial and therefore is precluded from raising this question in this court. This is plain error of which we take notice. (Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 110A, \u00a7 615 (a), People v. Scott, 100 Ill App2d 473, 241 NE2d 579.)\nAt several points during the closing argument, the former prosecutor made several remarks of such a prejudicial nature that we also recognize, even though they were not objected to by defense counsel. At one point the prosecutor stated:\n\u201cThe State\u2019s Attorney has a larger responsibility to the people than merely to prosecute those people who may have run afoul of the law. He has a duty to protect the innocent. He has a duty to dismiss cases when they are not properly based and founded and we have dismissed cases here that have not been properly brought against the defendant and this is one, however, against these two comparatively young men that I could not have in good conscience dismissed, that I could not in good conscience let go without prosecution.\u201d\nThere was no reference to any evidence on which his opinion was based. We believe that this was an improper reference to the prosecutor\u2019s personal belief that the defendants were guilty. As was stated in People v. Fuerback, 66 Ill App2d 452, 214 NE2d 330 at 456:\n\u201cThe Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it is improper for the prosecuting attorney to state his own individual opinion or belief of the defendant\u2019s guilt. People v. Provo, 409 Ill 62, 97 NE2d 802; People v. Hoffman, 399 Ill 57, 77 NE2d 195. It also violates the Canons of Ethics (Canon 15 of the Cannons of Professional Ethics of the ISBA and CBA)\nAnd in response to defense counsel\u2019s opening statement in the present case:\n\u201cLadies and Gentlemen, now it\u2019s my opportunity to say something to you. This is the court procedure and I think these clients can\u2019t get up here and tell you what is on their minds and what the evidence is and so, of course, under American jurisprudence the people have to hire someone to be their spokesman. So that\u2019s what we are. Mr. Starnes is spokesman for the State and I happen to be spokesman for these folks here,\u201d\nthe State\u2019s Attorney opened his rebuttal statement as follows:\n\u201cLadies and Gentlemen, I wanted that read to you so I would make no mistake about what opposing counsel said when he told you that these defendants cannot get up here and tell you their version of the facts. That\u2019s an absolute misstatement of the law. I wanted you to be clear on that. Any defendant in any case has the right to take the witness stand.\u201d\nThis reference cannot be justified as a proper rebuttal to the defense counsel\u2019s opening comment and was made only to direct the attention of the jury to defendants\u2019 failure to avail themselves of their legal right to testify, thus violating the defendants\u2019 right to remain silent under Ill Rev Stats 1969, c 38, \u00a7 155-1 and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (People v. Mills, 40 Ill2d 4, 237 NE2d 697; People v. Wollenburg, 37 Ill2d 480, 229 NE2d 490.)\nAt another point the prosecution responded to the arguments made by defense counsel that no one saw the money actually being taken from Mrs. Deterding\u2019s purse and that the amount found in the defendant\u2019s car was greater than the amount allegedly stolen, as follows:\n\u201cWe offered that evidence to show by another independent, unbiased witness that these two defendants were in Red Bud, Illinois, and they live in St. Louis, Missouri, they were in a grocery store casing the joint. Where did they get the other $102, the difference between $822 and $924? Maybe in the small town that Marvin Martin says they went to in Illinois when they left East St. Louis. We reached the outskirts in a small town in Illinois. Who knows how they acquired the money at that location.\u201d\nAnd at another point he stated:\n\u201cIt would be criminal, it would be terrible to let these defendants walk out this door to continue their wayward life of crime and take away somebody else\u2019s money, property or lives.\u201d\nThese comments improperly suggested that the defendants had been engaged in other criminal conduct for which they were not on trial and certainly were prejudicial. People v. Cage, 34 Ill2d 530, 216 NE2d 805; People v. Brown, 83 Ill App2d 457, 228 NE2d 505.\nSubstantial errors in this case have prevented the defendants from receiving the fair trial to which they were entitled.\nThe court thanks appointed counsel for an excellent brief and argument.\nFor the foregoing reasons this case is reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court of Randolph County for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nGOLDENHERSH and EBERSPACHER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MORAN, P. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Russell H. Classen, of Belleville, for appellants.", "Don P. Koeneman, State\u2019s Attorney of Randolph County, of Chester, and D. McMeekin Conn, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Hopkins and Marvin Martin, Defendants-Appellants.\nGen. No. 69-151.\nFifth District.\nMay 22, 1970.\nRussell H. Classen, of Belleville, for appellants.\nDon P. Koeneman, State\u2019s Attorney of Randolph County, of Chester, and D. McMeekin Conn, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0415-01", "first_page_order": 421, "last_page_order": 426 }