{ "id": 2597183, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Albert F. Zimmerman, Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Zimmerman", "decision_date": "1965-03-15", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 49,633", "first_page": "190", "last_page": "192", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "57 Ill. App. 2d 190" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "193 NE2d 773", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill2d 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2823645 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/29/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 NE2d 133", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 Ill App2d 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5270058 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "293" }, { "page": "292" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/47/0286-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 276, "char_count": 3600, "ocr_confidence": 0.508, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.7196295875439565e-07, "percentile": 0.8300798617988925 }, "sha256": "323bffcc7bd45406315ac739688e49d0a3a9940fb85c0c6e778c86a83137cb65", "simhash": "1:57b743b297ee733c", "word_count": 609 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:24.929812+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BUBMAN, P. J. and KLUCZYNSKI, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Albert F. Zimmerman, Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MB. JUSTICE MUBPHY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe State appeals from an order which sustained a motion to quash a search warrant, suppressed the evidence seized thereunder and other evidence seized without warrant, and ordered the return of punch-hoards and office records seized in the search.\nThe theory of the State is that (1) there is no evidence in the record to show that probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant was gained by unlawful trespass; (2) any claim that the warrant was not issued upon a showing of probable cause has been waived; (3) a punchboard is a gambling device or piece of gaming apparatus; (4) defendant is not exempt from the gambling laws because the punchboards were manufactured for shipment in interstate commerce; and (5) the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence not seized under the search warrant.\nAs defendant points out, neither the abstract nor the record include the \u201csearch warrant\u201d or \u201cthe written complaint of any person under oath or affirmation which states facts sufficient to show probable cause and which particularly describes the place or person, or both, to he searched and the things to be seized . . . ,\u201d (Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 38, \u00a7 108-3), upon which the \u201csearch warrant\u201d was issued.\nAt the hearing of the \u201cmotion to quash search warrant and to suppress evidence,\u201d the State, in the absence of the complaint and search warrant, stipulated that defendant\u2019s copies he used, and for the hearing of the motion caused them to be marked as defendant\u2019s exhibits 1 and 2. These exhibits are not included in the abstract or record.\nAs argued by defendant, the missing documents are \u201cthe very heart of this appeal.\u201d (People ex rel. City of Rockford v. City of Loves Park, 47 Ill App2d 286, 293, 198 NE2d 133 (1964).) This court cannot assume that the trial court relied entirely on the grounds set forth in writing in defendant\u2019s motion, included in this record. There may have been other grounds to support the order on which this appeal is based. Tbe \u201cquestion before a reviewing court is tbe correctness of the result reached by tbe trial court, and not tbe correctness of tbe reasoning upon which tbat result was reached.\u201d (People v. York, 29 Ill2d 68, 71, 193 NE2d 773 (1963).) Where tbe record on appeal is incomplete, tbe reviewing court will indulge every reasonable presumption favorable to tbe judgment, order or ruling appealed from. It will presume \u201ctbat tbe court ruled or acted correctly. . . . Any doubt arising from tbe incompleteness of tbe record will be resolved against appellant.\u201d (2 ILP, Appeal and Error, c 13, \u00a7 713; People ex rel. City of Rockford v. City of Loves Park, 47 Ill App2d 286, 292, 198 NE2d 133.) Following tbat rule, we must affirm tbe order of tbe trial court, because we cannot reach tbe contentions of tbe State without a complete record.\nIn conclusion, defendant contends tbat be should be discharged by this court because be was not tried within four months after be answered ready for trial. This is a matter for consideration by tbe trial court, as we are concerned only with tbe subject matter of tbe instant appeal.\nFor tbe reasons given, tbe order of tbe trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBUBMAN, P. J. and KLUCZYNSKI, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MB. JUSTICE MUBPHY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James'B. Thompson, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.", "Frank Gr. Whalen, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Albert F. Zimmerman, Appellee.\nGen. No. 49,633.\nFirst District, First Division.\nMarch 15, 1965.\nDaniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James'B. Thompson, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.\nFrank Gr. Whalen, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0190-01", "first_page_order": 202, "last_page_order": 204 }