{
  "id": 2577991,
  "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Marvin Holland, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Holland",
  "decision_date": "1966-10-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 65-146",
  "first_page": "460",
  "last_page": "464",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 Ill. App. 2d 460"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "196 NE2d 664",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2829274
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "302, 303"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/30/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 NE2d 436",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2826177
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "371, 372"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/30/0359-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 NE 104",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1910,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 Ill 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3410999
      ],
      "year": 1910,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "55-58"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/244/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 NE 609",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1906,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 Ill 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3333342
      ],
      "year": 1906,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/224/0212-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 NE2d 265",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 368,
    "char_count": 5460,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.635,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4916476050659184e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2813812697188137
    },
    "sha256": "2498a1f5762474abb33f1901147118e79c0cf8578c67135b28a954f2d4871932",
    "simhash": "1:8224e31e783d1ddc",
    "word_count": 924
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:26.646330+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Marvin Holland, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe defendant, Marvin Holland, was convicted of murder on October 26, 1951, in the Circuit Court of Winnebago County and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 99 years. The trial was before a jury and, among other evidence, a written confession was introduced into evidence.\nOn September 23, 1952, defendant filed a petition under the Post-Trial Conviction Hearings Act in the trial court, in which he alleged that he had been illegally arrested and held incommunicado without the right to contact counsel, that he was subjected to physical abuse and that he was coerced into signing the confession. The petition was dismissed without evidentiary hearing and defendant did not seek to review the judgment of dismissal. At that hearing defendant was represented by court appointed counsel.\nIn 1956, while represented by counsel of his choice, he filed a similar petition incorporating by reference all of the allegations of the 1952 petition. This petition was likewise dismissed. Again, defendant did not seek a review of the judgment of dismissal.\nThe instant petition for writ of error to the Circuit Court of Winnebago County was filed with the Supreme Court in November of 1964. In this action the defendant raised the constitutional claim of a coerced confession. In addition, he contended that the original trial court erred in failing to exclude certain testimony referring to the victim\u2019s widow and five children, and that further error was committed at the hearing on the admissibility of the confession, in that a material witness to the confession was not called to testify, nor was his absence explained. On September 28, 1965, in 33 I112d 246, 211 NE2d 265, at page 248, the supreme court in its opinion in this case, stated:\n\u201cThe prior denials of the post-conviction petitions are res judicata of all claims raised therein and of all constitutional claims which could have been raised and the constitutional claim now advanced cannot be considered on this writ of error, . . .\u201d\nThe court thereupon transferred the cause to this court for consideration of the remaining issue.\nThe contention of the defendant is that the court erred in overruling objections to the testimony of the chief of police that the victim left a wife and five children.\nAt the trial of this case the Chief of Police of the City of Rockford testified that after the confession was secured, he and other officers took the defendant out to various places which were material to substantiating the facts recited in the confession. While being questioned as to those events, the chief stated that at one of the places visited the following occurred:\n\u201cDefendant said he wished he could beat this rap. I said, \u2018Marvin,\u2019 I said, \u2018You realize the fact that you killed a man. This man left a wife and five children.\u2019 \u201d\n\u201cMr. Weston: I object to that, if the court please.\u201d\n\u201cThe Court: Motion denied.\u201d\n\u201cThe Witness: (continuing) \u2018That you left a widow and five children.\u2019 \u201d\n\u201cMr. Weston: I object and move the answer be stricken.\u201d\n\u201cThe Court: Objection overruled. That is what he said to the defendant.\u201d\n\u201cMr. Canfield: You may proceed.\u201d\n\u201cThe Witness: \u2018That you have left a widow and five children to look after. Don\u2019t you think you should have some punishment?\u2019 He said, \u2018Yes, but I\u2019m afraid of the electric chair. I wouldn\u2019t mind if I got life in the penitentiary.\u2019 We got the clothes and went back to the police station.\u201d\nThis testimony was not in response to an inquiry by the State\u2019s Attorney, but was interjected in a lengthy answer to a question relative to the occurrences of that day. There is nothing in the record to show that the State\u2019s Attorney at any time in his argument sought to prejudice the jury by making reference to the widow and children of the victim. Defendant cites numerous cases in support of his contention that the above quoted reference to the victim\u2019s widow and children is prejudicial error and requires a new trial. Among these cases are Filippo v. The People, 224 Ill 212, 79 NE 609 (1906); The People v. McMahon, 244 Ill 45, 55-58, 91 NE 104 (1910); The People v. Bernette, 30 Ill2d 359, 371, 372, 197 NE2d 436 (1964), and other cases. In all of these cases it appears that the evidence as to the family of the victim was introduced as evidence independent of any other admissible evidence and in each of the cases the court on appeal found that the purposes of introducing the evidence was solely to prejudice the jury. In all of the cases cited by the defendant, the decisions disclose that there were additional errors of more substantial nature involved.\nUnder the circumstances of this case, we do not find that the volunteered and inadvertent reference here made to the victim\u2019s family deprived the defendant of a fair trial, nor did it constitute prejudicial error. The People v. Brown, 30 Ill2d 297, 302, 303, 196 NE2d 664 (1964). For the reasons given, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Winnebago County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMORAN, P. J. and DAVIS, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John L. Snyder, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.",
      "William G. Clark, Attorney General of the State of Elinois, of Springfield, William R. Nash, State\u2019s Attorney, and William H. Snively, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Marvin Holland, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 65-146.\nSecond District.\nOctober 18, 1966.\nJohn L. Snyder, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General of the State of Elinois, of Springfield, William R. Nash, State\u2019s Attorney, and William H. Snively, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0460-01",
  "first_page_order": 466,
  "last_page_order": 470
}