{
  "id": 5661859,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WINSTON L.M. SENOR, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Senor",
  "decision_date": "1983-10-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 4\u201482\u20140565",
  "first_page": "694",
  "last_page": "696",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 Ill. App. 3d 694"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "296 N.E.2d 856",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. 2d 280",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2933485
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/54/0280-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "423 N.E.2d 546",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ill. App. 3d 885",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3110374
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/97/0885-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "378 N.E.2d 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 3d 434",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3345495
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/61/0434-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.E.2d 695",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "698"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ill. 2d 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2903225
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "516"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/47/0510-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4341,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.60167783687625e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28843438362622686
    },
    "sha256": "6a164afc552df63f2dad6bebb75b3e23d2b91ada748a02bcced400001427b587",
    "simhash": "1:af4a7d066eec85c0",
    "word_count": 718
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:55:29.032579+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. WINSTON L.M. SENOR, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Winston Se\u00f1or, appeals from his conviction on two counts of attempt (murder) and armed robbery. The defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior conviction. We affirm.\nThe facts of the case are not disputed. After robbing a grocery store at gunpoint, the defendant fired two shots at the police officers who were pursuing him. The defendant admitted robbing the store and firing the shots. However, he testified that he did not intend to hit the officers when he fired at them.\nThe State impeached the defendant with evidence of a prior conviction. At the time the record of the earlier conviction was introduced into evidence, the defendant made no objection to its introduction. The trial court admitted the record into evidence without any comment. No post-trial motion was filed by the defendant.\nThe defendant now argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it admitted the prior conviction into evidence because the court did not, sua sponte, indicate a balancing of probity of the conviction against its prejudicial effect.\nIn Illinois, the rule pertaining to the use of prior convictions was set forth in People v. Montgomery (1971), 47 Ill. 2d 510, 268 N.E.2d 695, wherein the Illinois Supreme Court adopted the proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Proposed Rule 609 provided in relevant part:\n\u201c \u2018Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime\n(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime, except on a plea of nolo contendere, is admissible but only if *** the judge determines that the probative value of the evidence of the crime is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.\u2019 \u201d (47 Ill. 2d 510, 516, 268 N.E.2d 695, 698.)\nThe court in Montgomery held that the admission of evidence of a prior conviction rested in the sound discretion of the court. A trial court is therefore required to weigh the probative value of the conviction against its prejudice to the defendant before admitting the conviction. People v. Preston (1978), 61 Ill. App. 3d 434, 378 N.E.2d 372; People v. Monigan (1981), 97 Ill. App. 3d 885, 423 N.E.2d 546.\nHowever, as noted above, the defendant failed to object to the admission of his prior conviction at trial and did not file a post-trial motion. It is well established that the failure by the defendant to raise an issue in the written motion for a new trial constitutes waiver of that issue on review absent \u201cplain error.\u201d People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280, 296 N.E.2d 856.\nIn People v. Preston (1978), 61 Ill. App. 3d 434, 378 N.E.2d 372, the defendant also argued that the trial court had failed to perform the Montgomery balancing test. The defendant Preston was impeached with his prior conviction during cross-examination. Like the defendant in the instant case, Preston failed to object to the use of his prior conviction during trial and in his post-trial motion. The Preston court held that the issue was therefore waived.\nIn reaching its decision, the Preston court noted that, had a timely objection been made, the trial court would have been in a position to make a ruling based on the Montgomery criteria. Similarly, the trial court in People v. Monigan (1981), 97 Ill. App. 3d 885, 423 N.E.2d 546, was given the opportunity to explain its ruling on the admissibility of a prior conviction where the defendant Monigan raised the issue in his post-trial motion.\nIn the instant case, the defendant neither objected at trial nor filed a post-trial motion. There is no \u201cplain error\u201d on the record before us. We therefore find that the issue of the admissibility of the defendant\u2019s prior conviction is waived.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Sangamon County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSTOUDER, P.J., and ALLOY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE BARRY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Gary R. Peterson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "J. William Roberts, State\u2019s Attorney, of Springfield (Robert J. Biderman, 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. WINSTON L.M. SENOR, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201482\u20140565\nOpinion filed October 11, 1983.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Gary R. Peterson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nJ. William Roberts, State\u2019s Attorney, of Springfield (Robert J. Biderman, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0694-01",
  "first_page_order": 716,
  "last_page_order": 718
}