{ "id": 5290858, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moczarney Martin, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Martin", "decision_date": "1966-01-06", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 50,273", "first_page": "290", "last_page": "295", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "66 Ill. App. 2d 290" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "145 NE 699", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 Ill 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5130526 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/314/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 NE2d 534", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "414 Ill 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5314057 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/414/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 NE2d 491", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Ill2d 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2799906 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/24/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 NE2d 753", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ill App2d 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5296272 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/63/0492-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 443, "char_count": 6688, "ocr_confidence": 0.598, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0482007796911243e-07, "percentile": 0.5527781735537477 }, "sha256": "52e653665ab4779ef0da214b4bc807d5d022c6aee23d8d6506b371a71813d401", "simhash": "1:4e89eaead363a212", "word_count": 1151 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:02.507220+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SULLIVAN, P. J. and SCHWARTZ, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moczarney Martin, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE DEMPSEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nMoczarney Martin and Augustus Varnado were indicted for burglary and theft, were tried before a jury, were found guilty of the theft of property worth more than $150 and were sentenced to the penitentiary for two to eight years. This appeal is by Moczarney Martin only.\nThe errors relied upon for reversal are prejudicial argument by the State\u2019s Attorney, prejudicial conduct by the court, failure to compel disclosure of the name of a police informer, violation of the defendant\u2019s constitutional rights and insufficient proof to establish the defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThe home of Carol Shields was broken into on April 15, 1963, and considerable property was stolen including a hi-fidelity AM-FM phonograph valued at $400. On April 30th the police received information which caused them to look for Martin and which led them to the location of the phonograph. On the way to the address given them by their informant they came upon Martin and arrested him. He was told that they had learned that he and another man had committed the burglary and had disposed of the phonograph. After first denying knowledge of the theft, Martin admitted that he and Varnado had taken the phonograph. He agreed to aid in finding Varnado.\nThe policemen then went to the residence of Joseph Ramey who'told them that the phonograph was in his home and that he had received it on April 16th from Martin and Varnado as security for a $75.00 loan made to Martin, whom he had known for years. He stated that Martin had introduced Varnado as his uncle and had said that his uncle would furnish the security. The three then went to Varnado\u2019s home, obtained the phonograph and brought it to Ramey\u2019s residence. Ramey repeated his story at the police station in the presence of Martin, who admitted its truthfulness.\nMartin was placed in a squad car and accompanied the policemen to Varnado\u2019s address. Varnado was arrested and the policemen questioned two women who were in his apartment. Varnado asked the officers not to involve the women, who he said were innocent of wrongdoing, and volunteered to tell the whole story. He said that he and Martin stole the phonograph, kept it overnight in his girl friend\u2019s home and the next day disposed of it as related by Ramey.\nAt the trial Ramey repeated his story. Martin and Varnado denied the theft, denied admitting it to the police and denied knowing each other. Martin testified that he was acquainted with Ramey. Varnado denied knowing Ramey.\nIt is not necessary to consider four of the five claims of error asserted by the defendant because error was committed by the trial judge himself which requires reversal of the judgment.\nMartin acknowledged that he was a drug addict and admitted that he had been found guilty of selling narcotics which conviction, at the time of his trial, was being appealed (People v. Martin, 63 Ill App2d 492, 211 NE2d 753 (1965)). He testified that because of his narcotics addiction he was very sick at the time of his arrest. Under cross-examination by the prosecutor, he said that he spent most of his weekly pay checks for heroin. Upon redirect examination he explained that when he had no money, or was ill, his suppliers would give him credit and that) his relatives would give him money. He also said that he had taken a narcotics cure about a month and a half before his prior conviction. An objection was made. The court sustained the objection and interposed:\n\u201cThe jury will disregard the questions of counsel because they are solely to create sympathy for the defendant.\u201d\nThe defendant further testified, on redirect examination, that he had been to Ramey\u2019s house a few times and had gambled there. An objection was made. The court remarked:\n\u201cYour witness testified that everything he earned he spent on narcotics, so evidently I don\u2019t know what he used to gamble.\u201d\nAn objection was made to the court\u2019s remarks. Soon thereafter Martin\u2019s attorney stated he had no further questions. The' court then questioned the defendant as follows:\n\u201cThe Court: Q. Mr. Martin, you say you bought narcotics on credit ?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. From who ?\nA. Well, sir, at the time when I was asked the same question\u2014\nQ. From who ?\nA. I won\u2019t answer the question, sir.\nQ. You don\u2019t want to answer that question?\nA. No sir.\nQ. How much narcotics did you buy on credit ?\nA. What it required for me to get my sickness off, sir.\nQ. What is that ? '\nA. What it had required for me to get my sickness off.\nQ. How much do you owe now for narcotics ?\nA. I don\u2019t owe anything.\nQ. You don\u2019t owe anything ?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. You paid it all back ?\nA. No, sir, I can\u2019t recall paying it all back.\nQ. Well then, you must owe somebody.\nA. There is a possibility I do.\nQ. Who?\nA. Well, I haven\u2019t stated any names.\nQ. Who?\nA. I haven\u2019t stated any names.\nQ. I\u2019m asking you who do you owe?\nA. I won\u2019t answer that question.\nQ. You don\u2019t -want to answer that question?\nA. No.\nQ. Why not ?\nA. I can\u2019t recall that person\u2019s name.\nThe Court: All right.\nDefendant\u2019s Counsel: Could I ask him a couple of questions ?\nThe Court: No.\u201d\nThe court\u2019s remarks tended to disparage the defendant\u2019s case and the court\u2019s questions discredited him. The questions were not relevant to a material issue, placed the defendant in a difficult position and were improper before a jury. They were searching and persistent, were asked as though in cross-examination and indicated that the court did not believe the defendant; their skeptical nature and partisan character deprived the defendant of an impartial trial.\nIt is the duty of a court to see that every defendant, guilty or innocent, receives a fair trial. A court must not, directly or indirectly, convey its opinion of a defendant\u2019s credibility to a jury. Jurors are ever watchful of the attitude of a trial court and any disclosure of disbelief or hostility is likely to influence their verdict. People v. Santucci, 24 Ill2d 93, 180 NE2d 491; People v. Marino, 414 Ill 445, 111 NE2d 534; People v. Garines, 314 Ill 413, 145 NE 699.\nJustice dictates that this case be retried. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.\nSULLIVAN, P. J. and SCHWARTZ, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE DEMPSEY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Marshall Hartman and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.", "Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Kenneth L. Gillis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moczarney Martin, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 50,273.\nFirst District, Third Division.\nJanuary 6, 1966.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Marshall Hartman and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nDaniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Kenneth L. Gillis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0290-01", "first_page_order": 302, "last_page_order": 307 }