{
  "id": 2539389,
  "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Dowling, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Dowling",
  "decision_date": "1968-05-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 51,804; Gen. No. 51,805",
  "first_page": "220",
  "last_page": "222",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 Ill. App. 2d 220"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "223 NE2d 110",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill2d 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5377101
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/36/0305-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 NE2d 708",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill2d 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2826745
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "136"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/30/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill App2d 223",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2539022
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/95/0223-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 323,
    "char_count": 4812,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.616,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.126044899151866e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4278691537614741
    },
    "sha256": "7f2f67fb5a944914e47e7ee0429f674b4a688379775bfca3b3d2f58d64acd497",
    "simhash": "1:e10ca7e36c2ddedb",
    "word_count": 828
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:57.800656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Dowling, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BURKE\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant was found guilty at a bench trial of the crime of attempt burglary and was sentenced to a term of 13 to 14 years in the penitentiary. The sole contention raised on this appeal is that the defendant\u2019s trial counsel deprived him of a fair trial in failing to request a change of venue from the trial judge.\nThe trial judge presided at the jury trial of the defendant one month earlier, which resulted in a conviction of the defendant on the charge of armed robbery. (See People v. Dowling, 95 Ill App2d 223. Sentencing of the defendant after the armed robbery conviction was postponed pending the outcome of the trial involved in the instant appeal. The trial judge sentenced defendant to a term of 25 to 50 years in the penitentiary on the armed robbery conviction, and to a term of 13 to 14 years on the conviction herein, the sentences to run concurrently.\nChicago Police Officer Donald Roth testified that he responded to a squadrol radio communication on March 4, 1966, and went to a two-flat building located on the northwest side of Chicago, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Abe Artstein. As the officer approached the front door of the building he observed two men in the vestibule, one of whom was in a crouched position and \u201cworking on the door\u201d with a crowbar and the other standing by his side. The men were later identified as the defendant, who was standing, and John Elwell, who was in the crouched position. The officer drew his revolver and announced his office. As he began to open the door, he heard a gunshot and observed Elwell fall to the floor. Defendant surrendered and walked out of the building with his hands up. Officer Roth testified that he did not shoot Elwell, but that defendant later told him that Elwell shot himself because he did not want to go to the penitentiary. A subsequent inspection of the area revealed marks on the door at the place were defendant and Elwell had been when approached by the officer, a piece of metal in the door lock, and an ice pick with a broken tip laying on the floor.\nDefendant contends that the trial judge heard a police officer testify at the robbery trial that defendant stated to him in response to questioning, \u201cI know nothing about a robbery, all you have me for is attempt burglary. I was backing up a man in a burglary,\u201d and was consequently prejudiced, thereby necessitating a change of venue. We disagree.\nDefendant was represented by the same counsel at the armed robbery trial and the trial involved herein. No objection was raised that the trial judge below was the same judge who presided at the robbery trial. In fact, a jury was waived for the attempted burglary trial. Whether this was trial strategy on the part of counsel we need not conjecture, People v. Wesley, 30 Ill2d 131, 136, 195 NE2d 708; the record clearly bears out that counsel was competent and acted in the interests of the defendant throughout the trial.\nAs to defendant\u2019s claim that the trial judge was prejudiced by his participation at the armed robbery trial, the records in both the armed robbery trial and the instant trial bear out that the judge was concerned with affording the defendant a fair trial. During the armed robbery trial the judge, of his own violation, called defendant\u2019s counsel aside and suggested that he not go into matters not connected with the case and that counsel be careful in his questioning. In the instant case, the judge sustained objections to such testimony by the police officer that he received a radio report of a \u201cburglary in progress,\u201d that the officer observed \u201cjimmy marks\u201d on the door, and the like.\nDefendant cites People v. Chatman, 36 Ill2d 305, 223 NE2d 110, in support of his position in this regard. In Chatman, the defendant was found guilty of two separate but similar crimes by the same trial judge at bench trials on two consecutive days. Furthermore, after the first trial the judge indicated his attitude toward the defendant by making disparaging remarks concerning his alibi. Here the armed robbery trial of Joseph Dowling was before a jury and the instant trial was without a jury one month later. The record in each trial reveals that the judge was concerned that defendant receive a fair trial.\nFor these reasons the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMCNAMARA and LYONS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BURKE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (George L. Lincoln, Norman W. Fishman, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Dowling, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 51,804. (Consolidated with Gen. No. 51,805.)\nFirst District, Second Division.\nMay 7, 1968.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (George L. Lincoln, Norman W. Fishman, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nJohn J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0220-01",
  "first_page_order": 226,
  "last_page_order": 228
}