{ "id": 5321970, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie Sumner, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sumner", "decision_date": "1968-02-28", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 10,857", "first_page": "386", "last_page": "397", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "92 Ill. App. 2d 386" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "360 US 367", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9054 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/360/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 NE2d 400", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ill2d 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2861739 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 NE2d 393", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ill2d 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2860346 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 NE2d 290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Ill2d 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5380420 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/35/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 NE2d 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 Ill App2d 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2898501 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/90/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 US 487", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11718842 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/373/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 US 343", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9045 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/360/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 NE2d 197", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 Ill2d 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2745653 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/19/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 US 83", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11716714 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/373/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 NE2d 316", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "321" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill2d 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2828355 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/30/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 NE2d 236", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ill App2d 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2585527 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/72/0258-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 840, "char_count": 17116, "ocr_confidence": 0.596, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2395483721956155e-07, "percentile": 0.6075122526448453 }, "sha256": "1219fcf72763458edf26892303d138cfa47683a78c4df302921fcf8070d13284", "simhash": "1:aab2b56a22ced5bb", "word_count": 2940 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:19:51.659076+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie Sumner, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CRAVEN, J.,\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn a prior appeal to this court from a judgment of conviction of the crime of murder, we remanded this case to the trial court, with directions to conduct hearings to determine the existence, availability, producibility, and relevancy of certain pretrial statements of witnesses who testified at the trial. People v. Sumner, 72 Ill App2d 258, 218 NE2d 236 (4th Dist 1966).\nThe purpose of that remandment was to determine whether or not impeachment evidence existed which should have been given to the defendant for his attorney\u2019s use at the trial. The inquiry was framed upon the issues of whether such evidence, if it existed, was producible and whether the failure to produce it at the trial for the use of the defendant had a prejudicial effect on the result of that trial.\nThat hearing has been conducted and the trial court has rendered its opinion and judgment which determined that certain statements existed and should have been produced for use by the defendant but that the effect of the failure to do so was not prejudicial.\nA total of fourteen pretrial statements or memoranda were in the F. B. I. files as a result of its investigation of the defendant\u2019s activities. Eleven of these had been given by the F. B. I. to the state\u2019s attorney of Vermilion County prior to trial. Three of these eleven had been given to defendant. The trial court held that the eight remaining statements or memoranda were the only ones which were producible at the demand of defendant at the trial since the remaining three documents the F. B. I. had retained were not in possession of the state\u2019s attorney at any time here relevant. People v. Wright, 30 Ill2d 519, 198 NE2d 316, 321 (1964).\nThe present appeal brings before us only the issues determined in the subsequent proceeding. The record in this case as made following remandment clearly demonstrates that the trial court, the state\u2019s attorney, the attorney for the defendant, and the F. B. I. cooperated to conduct a hearing which procedurally complied with the mandate of our former opinion.\nDefendant\u2019s primary contention here, however, is that the decision of the trial court that the error committed in failing to give the defendant\u2019s attorney access to the statements and summaries of statements in the hands of the prosecution was not prejudicial, is itself error. Two reasons are assigned in support of this contention. First, defendant contends that since the withheld accounts of conversations with the witnesses Maddox and Curtis contain matters which are contradictory to their testimony at the trial, the \u201charmless error\u201d doctrine does not apply and reversal is required. Second, since the statements attributed to the witness Maddox contain evidentiary material favorable to the defendant which was not disclosed by the prosecution, concealment or suppression of evidence requiring a new trial occurred. The new matter in this statement would tend to negate a connection between the barrels delivered by Maddox and the defendant to the dump at Stanford, Illinois, and the death of Herschel Williams. Resolution of these contentions requires an analysis of the content of the statements and the relationship of the material in them to the evidence at the trial.\nThere is a discussion of the evidence and the original rulings of the trial court which resulted in the hearing from which this appeal arises in our earlier opinion. The testimony given by Maddox was one of the keys to the prosecution\u2019s case. His trial testimony was to the effect that in April or May of 1963, on a Sunday, the defendant called Maddox to load and haul two barrels, one of which was painted and the other black, in his father\u2019s %-ton pickup truck, from Danville to a little town called Stanford near Bloomington, Illinois, which he did. The \u201cold barrel\u201d was light but the painted barrel required two people to lift it. Other evidence very clearly indicated that the decedent was never seen alive subsequent to March 25, 1963. His dismembered body was later discovered in a barrel in a dump near Stanford, Illinois. During the original F. B. I. investigation, Maddox had been interviewed three times, on May 15, 19, and 27, 1964. The results of these interviews had been transcribed by the agent conducting them, substantially verbatim, into one document. This document, although producible at the trial upon defendant\u2019s demand, was one of the documents which the court did not order the state\u2019s attorney to produce.\nThe prosecution had given the defendant, prior to trial, a signed statement of Maddox taken on July 10, 1964, by West, a deputy sheriff. This statement was used by the defendant\u2019s counsel in cross-examining this witness at the trial. The trial court, in its findings and order, noted the discrepancies which exist between the testimony of Maddox at the trial, the statements in May to the F. B. I., and the statement in July to Deputy Sheriff West. We set them forth verbatim as they appear both in the trial court\u2019s order and the memorandum submitted by the defendant:\n\u201cTESTIMONY AT THE _TRIAL_\nA. IDENTIFICATION OF THE BARREL\nWitness: Maddox\nRec. 116\n\u2018One was old and rusty and had a few holes in it., the other was fairly new\u2019 \u2014 \u2018The old one was rusty brown,\u2019 the other was \u2018purple and white.\u2019\n117\n\u2018The rusty one I could lift myself, the other Sumner had to help me \u2014 it was heavy.\u2019\n119\n\u2018The flap on the barrel was cut, twigs and branches sticking through the top.\u2019\nSTATEMENTS\nStatement 5/19/66 [sic, 5/19/ 64]:\n\u2018Both drums had tops on them and one had four holes in it.\u2019 Did not recall any identifying characteristics about the drums. Then later statement: \u2018One barrel was green and white and had no top\u2019 and it was full of paper and rags. Second barrel was black and had a top with holes about 2Vz\u201d to 3\" in diameter. The green and white one was light but took both men to load the black one.\nStatement to West 7/10/64:\nOne was black and the other purple and white.\nTESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL \u2014 Cont.\n128\n\u2018Identified the barrel by the color and the way the flap was on it \u2014 purple and white.\u2019\n129\nTop was cut and bent up.\n133\nThis also was a means of identification.\nNOTE:\nExhibit 1 \u2014 the barrel \u2014 offered in evidence was purple and white, the lid cut completely off with no flap of any kind and when found appeared flush with concrete.\nB. OTHER INCONSISTENCIES\nRec. 113-115\nAbst. 5\nMaddox testified in the latter part of April \u2014 on a Sunday \u2014the defendant called Mad- \u2022, , . , , dox and wanted him to do v n 7. c some hauling for him. Said he had to go and pick up barber equipment.\nSTATEMENTS \u2014 Cont.\n1. Statement to F.B.I.\n\u201e , , lTT ... 4. Maddox stated: He did not recall taking any type of trash or oil drums from Danville to Stanford for any\u00b0ne at any\nStatement to F.B.I. 5/19/64:\n,, , , , . ,, , ,, , Maddox stated m the latter part \u201e _ 1 .... 7 of December, 1962, or the early , \u00ab T f J\u2122y l963 he hauled the drums to the Bloomington area.\nStatement to F.B.I. 5/27/64:\nMaddox stated that one day in December, 1962, Don (the defendant) called and asked him to haul some barber equipment to Danville; that Maddox drove to Don\u2019s shop and Don told him he had some things to take to the dump en route (and went on to\nTESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL \u2014 Cont.\nRec. 130 & 131 Abst. 9\nMaddox testified that he had not known the defendant too long \u2014 about five or six months; that he got his hair cut at the defendant\u2019s shop.\nRec. 133-135 Abst. 9\nMaddox stated he did not know Jessie Sumner by that name. He knew him as Don. He did not know his last name either.\nSTATEMENTS \u2014 Cont.\nstate that he and the defendant took two barrels to Stanford, Illinois).\nStatement to Wm. West 7/ 10/64:\nMaddox told West that somewhere around the latter part of December, 1962, or the first part of January, 1963, they did the hauling of the barrels to Stanford, Illinois.\nStatement to West 7/10/64:\nMaddox stated: \u2018Sumner told him they were going to dump it right outside of Stanford, Illinois.\u2019\n2. Identification of the defendant:\nStatement to F.B.I. 5/15/64:\nMaddox stated he did not recall knowing a Jessie Donald Sumner.\nStatement to Wm. West 7/ 10/64:\nWhen asked why he denied knowing Donald Sumner he stated he did not know the name Jessie Sumner. That in the meantime he had talked to his mother by phone and she had told him that if he knew anything it was his duty to tell the officers.\nStatement to F.B.I. 5/19/64:\nHe stated that he had known the defendant for approximate-\nTESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL \u2014 Cent.\nC. LOCATION OF THE DUMP\nRec. 122\nAbst. 78 [sic, 7]\n\u2018We was going down the highway just about the city limits of Stanford we turned off to the right, a paved road, went down a little ways and the road turned off again to the right for a dirt road, and right there was a dump, and we pulled in and backed the truck up and dumped the barrels.\u2019\nAbst. 11\nMcElvaney described the location of the dump as being on a black topped road at what they called Sportsman\u2019s Lake near Stanford.\nRec. 150 [sic, 149]\nAbst. 11\nMcElvaney testified: \u2018It\u2019s on a black topped road, oh, I\u2019d say a mile or a mile and a half east of Stanford.\u2019\nD. STATEMENT OF CURTIS WITH REFERENCE TO CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT\nRec. 295\nAbst. 26\nCurtis testified that he met the defendant in January,\nSTATEMENTS \u2014 Cent.\nly one year and had gone with his niece, Judy Shatto.\nStatement 5/27/64:\n\u2018About 300 yards from the city limits sign for Stanford they turned off a paved road to the right. As they proceeded up this road two miles they turned off on a dirt road to the right and continued another two miles.\u2019 Maddox said that he observed a gully being used as a dump and saw trash, including old appliances in the gully then he went 200 feet along the edge of the gully to the end where they dumped the trash, including the barrels into the gully.\nStatement to F.B.I. 6/29/64:\nHe stated that he was briefly acquainted with Jessie Donald Sumner in the prison barber\nTESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL \u2014 Cont.\n1964; saw Mm once a week; talked to Mm frequently; was pretty well acquainted with him.\nSTATEMENTS \u2014 Cont.\nshop during the first part of June, 1964 (which incidently [sic] is subsequent to the date of the discovery of the body of Herschel Williams).\u201d\nIn addition to the discrepancies noted above, in May, 1964, at the second interview, Maddox recognized the defendant and identified him as \u201cDon the Barber.\u201d He also recognized the decedent, Herschel Williams, by photograph, but he stated that Williams was the person who helped him load barber equipment into his truck following the dumping of the barrels at a little town just outside Bloomington.\nAt the third interview, on May 27, 1964, Maddox confirmed the May 19 version and reaffirmed that he saw Herschel Williams alive in Stanford after the barrels were dumped. In this statement, he also says that \u201che was sure he saw Williams on the Street in Danville at least twice in the next two months after this incident . . . .\u201d\nThe statement of Curtis, which was not produced, was taken on June 29, 1964, and indicated that he had met the defendant, Sumner, in the prison barbershop during the first part of June, 1964. This is different from his testimony at the trial that he met the defendant in January, 1964, and saw him on more than one occasion\u2014 about once a week; that he was pretty well acquainted with him. The first meeting, if it took place at the time given in the statement, occurred after the discovery of the body of Herschel Williams was publicized.\nThe material in the nonproduced statements of these two witnesses is not so strongly exculpatory nor so in conflict with the testimony at the trial that its non-production was a violation of due process. Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 US 83, 10 L Ed2d 215, 83 S Ct 1194 (1963), relied upon by the defendant, involved failure of the prosecution to advise the defendant that an accomplice had confessed to the actual strangulation of the victim for which the defendant was being tried as a principal. The discrepancies in the nonproduced statements here are not of this magnitude. The cases relied upon by defendant on this point are distinguishable by the fact that the statement withheld was directly, not inferentially, exculpatory. Evidence is not suppressed when the prosecutor fails to bring out every inconsistency in pretrial statements of witnesses compared with their testimony, nor when he fails to advise the defendant that matters were inquired into prior to trial that were not brought out by the testimony of the witness. To so hold would interfere to an unwarranted degree in the trial tactics and trial preparation of the state\u2019s attorney. The abuse sought to be corrected is amply controlled by surrender, at the trial, of the pretrial statements of the witness testifying, in the mode set forth in People v. Wolff, 19 Ill2d 318, 167 NE2d 197 (1960), for use by defendant in cross-examination. For these reasons, we reject the contention that this case must be reversed for the concealment or suppression of evidence.\nThe rule requiring production of these statements and memoranda as announced in People v. Wolff, 19 Ill2d 318, 167 NE2d 197 (1960), while based upon considerations of fundamental fairness, as developed in the federal-court system by both judicial decision and statute (Palermo v. United States, 360 US 343, 3 L Ed2d 1287, 79 S Ct 1217 (1959)), never has been based upon any specific substantive constitutional guarantee. It is a rule of procedure designed to further the fair and just administration of criminal justice. Campbell v. United States, 373 US 487, 10 L Ed2d 501, 83 S Ct 1356 (1963). There will be many occasions, as here, where the diserepancies disclosed during that investigation are a proper matter for cross-examination and yet are not directly exculpatory of the defendant to the point that bad faith on the part of the prosecution must be legally presumed through failure to disclose the existence of the contradictory statement. In other cases, the failure to produce the statements, while improper, cannot conceivably have affected the result of the trial either because the statement bears upon the testimony of only one of many witnesses whose testimony is merely cumulative, People v. Wolff, 19 Ill2d 318, 167 NE2d 197 (1960), or the evidence withheld from inspection did not concern an issue which was contested at the trial, People v. Tribbett, 90 Ill App2d 296, 232 NE2d 523 (4th Dist 1967).\nThe test, then, of the extent of the error committed here by failure to give these statements, in the hands of the prosecution, to the defendant upon demand is empirical and must be made on an ad hoc basis. Necessarily, therefore, the standards by which the extent of error must be judged are those standards applicable to the doctrine of harmless error. That test and standard is that the error could not be said to have reasonably affected the verdict or that there was other evidence which established the defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.\nHowever, when the credibility of a defendant is impeached by showing a prior conviction established to have been invalid, this error requires a reversal notwithstanding the quantum of remaining competent evidence to sustain the conviction. People v. Shook, 35 Ill2d 597, 221 NE2d 290 (1966). Likewise, error in the admission of a confession of the defendant cannot be harmless error, and \u201ca mere mechanical subtraction of the confession (s) from the competent evidence\u201d is not an appropriate measure of the harm occasioned by the error. People v. Mason, 38 Ill2d 411, 231 NE2d 393 (1967). In People v. Rhodes, 38 Ill2d 389, 231 NE2d 400 (1967), the court held that improperly admitted wire-tapping evidence did not preclude a conviction when there was other and independent evidence to establish guilt. In this case, as we stated in our earlier opinion, it was error to deny the statements now in the record to the defendant on his demand. The detailed analysis of these statements contained in the opinion of the trial court indicates, however, that to the extent that the information therein contained could have been used for impeachment, it was either merely cumulative or related to details ancillary to the substance of the testimony received at the trial.\nIt is clear that had the statements been available, there would have been available to the defendant a basis for impeachment. We are satisfied, however, that the variations between testimony and statement as to dates, color and description of the barrels, and other details were not so grave as to reasonably affect the verdict of the jury. The finding that the error was not prejudicial is affirmed. See Rosenberg v. United States, 360 US 367, 3 L Ed2d 1304, 79 S Ct 1231 (1959).\nJudgment affirmed.\nSMITH, P. J. and TRAPP, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "CRAVEN, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "F. Daniel Welseh, of Danville, for appellant.", "John P. O\u2019Rourke, State\u2019s Attorney of Vermilion County, of Danville (Ralph D. Mawdsley, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie Sumner, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 10,857.\nFourth District.\nFebruary 28, 1968.\nF. Daniel Welseh, of Danville, for appellant.\nJohn P. O\u2019Rourke, State\u2019s Attorney of Vermilion County, of Danville (Ralph D. Mawdsley, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0386-01", "first_page_order": 392, "last_page_order": 403 }