{ "id": 2560037, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivory Cuttley, (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Cuttley", "decision_date": "1967-04-17", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 51,101", "first_page": "321", "last_page": "328", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 Ill. App. 2d 321" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "71 NE2d 340", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "396 Ill 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2465918 ], "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "161" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/396/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 NE 183", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 Ill 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5296241 ], "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/352/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 NE2d 300", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Ill2d 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5334974 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/17/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 NE2d 54", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 Ill2d 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2742070 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/19/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 F2d 720", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 193805 ], "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/310/0720-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 NE2d 120", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 Ill2d 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2790543 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/22/0601-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 639, "char_count": 12884, "ocr_confidence": 0.606, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.953433995006808e-08, "percentile": 0.5369587184426582 }, "sha256": "a466d58a770860f1bbc46df40583a9a405514414b548cbd6ff695e12ecde02c8", "simhash": "1:163213037313c24a", "word_count": 2227 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:37.088782+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BURMAN and ADESKO, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivory Cuttley, (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MURPHY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nA jury found defendant guilty of robbery, and he was sentenced to 4 to 12 years. On appeal, he contends he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and his constitutional rights were violated when the State was allowed to present to the jury evidence of defendant\u2019s prior convictions.\nOn April 26, 1965, at 1:30 a. m., Robert Lea, a cabdriver, was robbed by two men. Shortly thereafter, while at a police station, he identified defendant as one of the robbers, and later identified defendant in a lineup. The cabdriver and a police officer testified that defendant admitted his guilt. Defendant denied the robbery or any admissions.\nAt the trial, Lea, the cabdriver, identified defendant in the courtroom. Lea testified that defendant and Hosea Johnson entered his cab, and after being driven around, they robbed him of $41. Defendant Cuttley \u201cput a knife on my neck . . . the blade was open.\u201d After the robbery, Lea jumped out of the cab, and \u201cCuttley was chasing me. I was getting a little distance between us so I snatched a picket off a fence . . . and I turned on him and he turned and they ran through an alley, between Lawndale and Ridgeway.\u201d He lost sight of them and reported the matter to a passing police car.\nLater that morning, and at a police station, defendant Cuttley was brought in, and Lea said, \u201cThat\u2019s the guy right there that stuck me up.\u201d While in the presence of the arresting officers, defendant Cuttley asked Lea for a cigarette and Lea gave him a whole package, and \u201cI told him that if he had asked me for some money I would have given him some money. That he didn\u2019t have to stick me up. He said, \u2018Well, I didn\u2019t hurt you, did I,\u2019 and that\u2019s all he said, that\u2019s all I heard him say.\u201d Later, at 11th and State Street, Lea saw Cuttley and Johnson in a lineup. This was the first time he saw Johnson after the robbery. Present were Officers Alford and Morley, and \u201cCuttley was accusing Johnson of having the knife and Johnson was accusing Cuttley of having the knife. I can\u2019t remember the exact words of the conversation.\u201d\nJames Alford, a police officer, testified for the State and identified Cuttley and substantially corroborated Lea\u2019s testimony as to the happening at the police station. He heard Lea ask, \u201c \u2018Why did you rob me?\u2019 He said, \u2018If you wanted some money why didn\u2019t you ask for it.\u2019 He said, T know what it is like not to have any money, and I would have given you some money had you asked for it.\u2019 And at that time the defendant asked Mr. Lea for a cigarette and Mr. Lea gave him a pack of cigarettes and then the defendant said, \u2018Well, I didn\u2019t hurt you, did I?\u2019 \u201d\nOfficer Alford further testified that he had arrested Hosea Johnson on information given him by Cuttley, and at 11th and State Cuttley and Johnson accused each other of having or holding the knife. After Lea left the police station, and in the presence of Detective Morley and Johnson, Officer Alford asked Cuttley why he committed the robbery, and \u201che stated that he wanted to get some money to purchase an automobile.\u201d\nOn cross-examination, Officer Alford stated that he did not get a written statement from Cuttley, and \u201cI never wrote down any of the admissions he made.\u201d\nDefendant Cuttley testified and denied the robbery or any admissions. He was arrested by Officer Alford and interrogated about a shotgun. He was taken to the police station, where he saw Lea, the cabdriver, who said nothing. Later Cuttley asked Alford for a cigarette, and the cabdriver gave him a package and said, \u201c T am giving you this package because you robbed me.\u2019 I said, T didn\u2019t rob you, mister, you know.\u2019 So he said, \u2018You put a knife on me.\u2019 I didn\u2019t know what he was talking about. I accepted the pack of cigarettes from him. I really did. I never said to him, T didn\u2019t hurt you, did I ?\u2019 \u201d Cuttley denied saying to Officer Alford that he would \u201cbeat this case in court,\u201d and on cross-examination said, \u201c [H] e was asking me did I rob him and I told him no, I did not rob him. So the detective told me, he said, \u2018If you did rob him,\u2019 he said, \u2018You should have robbed him,\u2019 and I asked him why. . . . that is when he said, T will see to it that you get ten years.\u2019 \u201d\nIn rebuttal, Robert Lea and James Alford testified that Alford never told defendant he was going to get ten years. Officer Thomas Morley also testified in rebuttal that \u201cI was present at 1121 South State Street at a lineup. I had never heard the detective tell the defendant that he should have done the robbery anyway because he was going to get ten years anyway.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s first contention is that during the trial, oral confessions were admitted in violation of section 114-10 (Ill Rev Stats, c 38), and except for the improperly admitted evidence, the State\u2019s'case was based on a single identification, which was inherently weak.\nThe record shows that on December 13, 1965, after prospective jurors were sworn for examination upon their voir dire and placed in the jury box, the court recessed further questioning of the jury until 2:00 p. m. of the same day. At two o\u2019clock, and before the questioning of the prospective jurors was resumed, the State asked leave \u201cto amend its list of witnesses of those persons present at the time of an oral statement by the defendant, Ivory Cuttley, and the defendant, Hosea Johnson,\u201d and stated to the court, \u201cPrior to trial counsel for the defense moved for a list of witnesses and also for the list of persons present at the time of written and oral statements. At that time we advised the defense in writing of the witnesses to be called at the trial. We advised the defense that there was no written statement by either defendant in this indictment, and we advised the defense as to both defendants Mr. Robert Lea and Detective James Alford were present at the time of oral statements. . . . and it just came to our attention over the noon recess that Detective Morley was present at the time of oral statements to Mr. Lea and Detective Alford. And we had no knowledge of this fact until about half an hour ago, and we will have Detective Morley available at this time, any time today or tomorrow morning for the defense, if they wish, to interview him. We ask at this time before the trial is commenced to amend the list to include his name.\u201d\nCounsel for the defendant objected to the amendment. The court allowed the motion and offered defense counsel any time necessary to interview the person added. After discussion, the court offered to allow a motion for mistrial if counsel for defendant made it. Another recess was taken, after which counsel for defendant stated: \u201cLet the record show I have spoken to Detective Morley and I still object to the inclusion of his name, but we are ready to proceed.\u201d The examination of the jury then proceeded until twelve jurors were accepted by both sides and sworn to try the issues.\nAs to the amendment of the list of witnesses and the receipt in evidence of the testimony of Lea and Officer Alford of the oral admissions of defendant Cuttley, we find that the provisions of sections 114-9 and 114-10 were complied with. Although we believe the provisions of section 114-10 (c) applied to the testimony of Officer Morley, we note that he was called only in rebuttal and then was not questioned about any admissions of defendant. We find no error in the procedure followed by the court in permitting the amendment to the list of witnesses or in the receipt of the testimony of Lea and Officer Alford regarding the oral admissions of defendant.\nWe find no merit in defendant\u2019s contention that his identification was weak. Lea\u2019s testimony shows an extended exposure to the defendant during the robbery, followed by an immediate identification at the station. The alleged oral admissions of defendant to Lea buttressed the identification, but the previous identification was positive and based on sufficient happenings. A single positive identification by a credible witness is sufficient for conviction.\nDefendant next contends that \u201cthe admission of evidence of defendant\u2019s prior criminal record deprived defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial.\u201d After the State rested and after the court had been informed that it was the intention of defendant to testify, a discussion was had between court and counsel of the State\u2019s desire to introduce in evidence, after the defendant testified, proof of three prior felony convictions, of which one was a Cook County conviction. Over the objection of defendant, the court gave permission to the State to advise the jury \u201cthat the defendant Ivory Cuttley has been previously convicted of a felony, to-wit, robbery, and that the jury may consider this fact for the purpose of judging and weighing the credibility of the defendant, and for that purpose only.\u201d This was done, and the jury was so instructed.\nDefendant argues that \u201cevidence of defendant\u2019s prior criminal record is deemed by the courts to be so prejudicial that it violates defendant\u2019s right to a fair trial.\u201d Citations on this point include People v. Gregory, 22 Ill2d 601, 177 NE2d 120 (1961), where it is said (p 603):\n\u201cUnder our concepts of a fair and impartial criminal trial, it is elementary that a defendant, no matter how reprehensible his crime or how black his history of past misdeeds, is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely with reference to the crime with which he is charged. Accordingly, it is well settled that evidence of other offenses unrelated to the crime for which a defendant is on trial is incompetent. And where such irrelevant material is contained in an otherwise competent statement or confession, it must be deleted before the statement or confession is read to the jury, unless to do so would seriously impair its evidentiary value.\u201d\nIn United States v. Banmiller, 310 F2d 720 (1962), where the court discussed whether it was possible for a jury to consider evidence of the defendant\u2019s prior conviction for certain purposes and still not be so prejudiced against defendant as to prevent a fair determination of his guilt, it is said:\n\u201cCertainly such a feat of psychological wizardry verges on the impossible even for berobed judges. It is not reasonable to suppose that it could have been accomplished by twelve laymen brought together as a jury.\u201d\nDefendant further argues, \u201cThe Courts have constantly held that the State cannot by indirection, present to a jury evidence which is improper for the State to present directly. People v. Pelkola, 19 Ill2d 156, 166 NE2d 54; People v. Tunstall, 17 Ill2d 160, 161 NE2d 300. In the area of prior convictions of the defendant, it is improper to present to the jury evidence demonstrating defendant\u2019s general propensity to commit crime. To do so is to deny defendant\u2019s constitutional right to a fair trial. To allow the State, under the guise of some rule based on history, to do indirectly, what they are not allowed to do directly, does not make the trial any less unfair. Under the Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution as well as under Article II of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, an accused in a criminal prosecution is accorded, and indeed guaranteed, the right to a fair and impartial trial. Jurymen cannot be impartial when the fact that the accused has been previously convicted for the same crime is formally disclosed to them at this trial\u2019s outset.\u201d\nAs to this contention, the State argues, \u201cHere, the stipulated evidence of defendant\u2019s prior conviction was introduced in rebuttal consonant with statutory and case law. ... No prejudice was suffered by defendant.\u201d\nThe introduction of the record of conviction of an infamous crime for the purpose of affecting the credibility of such a witness is authorized by the Evidence Act (Ill Rev Stats, e 51, \u00a7 1) and by the \u201cCode of Criminal Procedure of 1963\u201d (c 38, \u00a7 155-1). See, also, People v. Schanda, 352 Ill 36, 185 NE 183 (1933); People v. Buford, 396 Ill 158, 161, 71 NE2d 340 (1947). The record here and the law on this point show that the action in the trial court was proper and, therefore, we find no error.\nWe conclude that this record shows that the defendant was given a fair trial under the law and proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBURMAN and ADESKO, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MURPHY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Frederick F. Cohn 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 Morton Friedman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivory Cuttley, (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 51,101.\nFirst District, First Division.\nApril 17, 1967.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Frederick F. Cohn 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 Morton Friedman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0321-01", "first_page_order": 327, "last_page_order": 334 }