{
  "id": 3626991,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN H. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1983-03-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-82-0480",
  "first_page": "101",
  "last_page": "104",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "113 Ill. App. 3d 101"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "30 La. L. Rev. 651",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "La. L. Rev.",
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "668"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "448 U.S. 56",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1787607
      ],
      "weight": 9,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "66"
        },
        {
          "page": "608"
        },
        {
          "page": "2539"
        },
        {
          "page": "66"
        },
        {
          "page": "608"
        },
        {
          "page": "2539"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/448/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "380 N.E.2d 1095",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 3d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3332223
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/64/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "404 N.E.2d 415",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill. App. 3d 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5552323
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/83/0305-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N.E.2d 794",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 Ill. 2d 373",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2731929
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/21/0373-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 461,
    "char_count": 7064,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.771,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5828155114230504e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28694317699603333
    },
    "sha256": "9227b9962ca0f36f07e2c62bc970ef563cd74523823e020db999cf3c03cf8348",
    "simhash": "1:b2de9e736ec52ffb",
    "word_count": 1191
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:40:35.449940+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. JOHN H. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE GREEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, John H. Smith, appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Clark County entered on July 14, 1982, after a bench trial, convicting him of driving while his license was revoked (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 951/2, par. 6 \u2014 303), sentencing him to 30 days\u2019 imprisonment and fining him $100. We affirm.\nDefendant\u2019s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court violated his privilege to confront the witnesses against him as guaranteed by the sixth amendment as incorporated in the fourteenth amendment. (U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV.) He asserts this violation took place when the trial court admitted into evidence an abstract from the office of the Secretary of State, certified to by that officer and containing a copy of an order of that officer revoking defendant\u2019s license to drive on October 6, 1971.\nDefendant concedes that, under Illinois practice, the admission of the abstract was proper. Subsections (a) and (b) of section 6 \u2014 117 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 951/2, par. 6 \u2014 117(a), (b)) direct the Secretary of State to keep records of the issuance and revocation or suspension of drivers licenses respectively. Section 6\u2014 118(b) of the Code (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 95V2, par. 6 \u2014 118(b)) provides for the Secretary to furnish abstracts of drivers records which includes matters of the driver\u2019s \u201cregistration.\u201d Section 6 \u2014 118(f) (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 95V2, par. 6 \u2014 118(f)) states that such an abstract issued to a law enforcement agency upon its request for information as to the \u201cstatus of [a person\u2019s] driver\u2019s license shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated ***.\u201d In addition, section 2 \u2014 108 of the Code states:\n\u201cThe Secretary of State is hereby authorized to prepare under the seal of the Secretary of State certified copies of any records of his office and every such certified copy shall be admissible in any proceeding in any court in like manner as the original thereof.\u201d 111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 951/2, par. 2 \u2014 108.\nThe proof of records of the Secretary of State to show that an individual\u2019s driver\u2019s license has been revoked has been approved. (People v. White (1961), 21 Ill. 2d 373, 172 N.E.2d 794; People v. Younge (1980), 83 Ill. App. 3d 305, 404 N.E.2d 415; People v. Johnson (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 377, 380 N.E.2d 1095.) This is but an extension of the common law rule that a public record may be proved by a copy thereof certified by the custodian. See E. Cleary & M. Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence sec. 901.8, at 490 (3d ed. 1979).\nRelying on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Roberts (1980), 448 U.S. 56, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 100 S. Ct. 2531, defendant maintains that, any statutory or common law rule permitting foundation proof of the authenticity of the copy of the records involved by certificate of the Secretary of State without proof of the unavailability of the keeper of the records is violative of the confrontation clause. He argues that the lack of specificity of the statutes as to how the driver's records are to be kept, make it too difficult for an accused in a misdemeanor case to check the records before trial to determine the evidence against him and the accuracy of the records. He claims that his difficulty here is magnified because a misdemeanor charge is involved, and he has no right to discovery. He also maintains that because of the Secretary of State\u2019s interest in keeping unsafe drivers off the roads, the Secretary might be biased in making the certificate.\nIn Roberts, a transcript of the testimony of a prosecution witness given at a preliminary hearing was tendered by the State and admitted into evidence at trial over defense objection. Certain evidence was introduced as to the unavailability of the witness. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court held the admission of the evidence was proper. It reasoned that the defense had sufficient opportunity to examine the witness at the preliminary hearing to make the testimony likely to be reliable, and the unavailability of the witness was proved. The court discussed the purpose and operation of the confrontation clause and its relationship to the rules concerning hearsay. The court stated:\n\u201cIn sum, when a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable. Even then, his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate \u2018indicia of reliability.\u2019 Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.\u201d (448 U.S. 56, 66, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 608, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2539.)\nPrevious to the above language, footnote 8 to the opinion noted a Louisiana law review article which stated, \u2018 \u2018Properly administered the business and public records exceptions would seem to be among the safest of the hearsay exceptions.\u201d Comment, 30 La. L. Rev. 651, 668 (1970), as noted in Ohio v. Roberts (1980), 448 U.S. 56, 66, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 608, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2539.\nFrom the language used in Roberts, one could infer that the court deemed the unavailability of a record custodian to give foundation testimony to be a condition precedent to proving the contents of a public record by a certified copy. Such an inference would, at most, create dictum, because the Roberts court upheld the introduction of the hearsay evidence, and the evidence did not concern the contents of a public record. Moreover, the opinion stated that unavailability was required \u201cnormally.\u201d The rule that the contents of public records may be proved by certified copy would be the most logical exception to that which would be normally required. Rule 902(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (Fed. R. Evid. 902(4)) permits proof of public records by copy certified by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certificate. The rule makes no limitation upon the use of such certified copies against an accused in a criminal case. The United States Supreme Court adopted those rules. Despite the broad language of the opinion, we do not interpret it to indicate an intent to modify its own rules or the longstanding practice of proving public records even to the limited extent suggested by defendant. The rule suggested by defendant would be most impractical and would create a dispute in many cases as to the specificity of the statutory language in regard to the keeping of the records and as to the interest of the custodian in enforcement of the laws involved. We reject defendant\u2019s theory.\nAccordingly, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nWEBBER, P.J., and MILLER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE GREEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fred W. Johnson, of Robert L. Douglas, Ltd., of Robinson, for appellant.",
      "David W. Lewis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Marshall (Robert J. Biderman and Denise M. Paul, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN H. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201482\u20140480\nOpinion filed March 7, 1983.\nFred W. Johnson, of Robert L. Douglas, Ltd., of Robinson, for appellant.\nDavid W. Lewis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Marshall (Robert J. Biderman and Denise M. Paul, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0101-01",
  "first_page_order": 123,
  "last_page_order": 126
}