{
  "id": 3442332,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY SHELLY, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Shelly",
  "decision_date": "1985-03-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 84\u20141438",
  "first_page": "197",
  "last_page": "199",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 Ill. App. 3d 197"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "5 N.E.2d 78",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 Ill. 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2585622
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/364/0563-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "442 N.E.2d 255",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. 2d 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3097208
      ],
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/92/0545-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 N.E.2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill. App. 3d 716",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2710085
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/31/0716-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 4243,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.09596061391996213
    },
    "sha256": "03783f2fb9f06dee50687c82c16b5cc86b8c3e7faf22621fba5288f68f1b4862",
    "simhash": "1:0f698c06dbce2bf5",
    "word_count": 702
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:37.184543+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. ANTHONY SHELLY, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Anthony Shelly, was charged with burglary. After a jury found him guilty of that crime, the trial court sentenced him to an extended term of 14 years. On appeal defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in restricting his cross-examination of the arresting officer.\nOn October 28, 1983, at 1 a.m., Patricia Johnson heard her dog barking and looked out the rear window of her home. She saw a light in her neighbor\u2019s garage and noticed that the garage door was open. When she saw someone, not her neighbor, walking around inside the garage, she telephoned the police. By the time she returned to the window, the police had arrived.\nOfficer Kupetis and his partner were in the area when the call was received, and they arrived on the scene immediately. The officers proceeded down the alley and noticed defendant standing in an alcove between two garages. Defendant was stooping over some objects at his feet. These objects had been stolen from the garage in question and were later identified by the owner of the objects.\nOn appeal defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in restricting his cross-examination of Officer Kupetis.\nDuring direct examination of Kupetis, the prosecutor asked what defendant did when he stood up in the alcove. Kupetis replied that defendant said, \u201cI didn\u2019t do anything. What are you doing here?\u201d On cross-examination, defense counsel attempted to elicit the balance of defendant\u2019s statement wherein he also said he was urinating. The trial court sustained the State\u2019s objection to the question.\nA statement made by a defendant in custody after his arrest which is offered in his favor is not an admission but is inadmissible hearsay. (People v. Garth (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 716, 334 N.E.2d 359.) However, where a witness testifies to a part of the conversation, the opposing party has a right to bring out all of the conversation. People v. Weaver (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 545, 442 N.E.2d 255; People v. Nakutin (1936), 364 Ill. 563, 5 N.E.2d 78.\nThe State maintains that this evidentiary rule is inapplicable because Kupetis\u2019 response as to what defendant said was unresponsive to the prosecutor\u2019s question and was not specifically elicited. Furthermore, according to the State, any error in refusing to admit the rest of the statement was harmless because the jury heard the most exculpatory portion of the statement.\nWe would agree with the State\u2019s position that the inadvertent response did not prejudice defendant if the State had not argued the opposite in its closing argument to the jury. The prosecutor argued:\n\u201cBut I think his words gave him away. What did he say? He says he asked the police \u2018What are you doing here? I didn\u2019t do nothing,\u2019 to use his words. Are those the words of an innocent man?\nWhen you see the police, do you ask the police, \u2018What are you doing here?\u2019 Do, all of a sudden, the first words out of your mouth, you tell the police, if you\u2019re an innocent man, \u2018I\u2019m not doing nothing.\u2019 No ladies and gentlemen. Those words out of the mouth of Mr. Shelly, I think, establishes his guilt, as well as all of the other evidence.\u201d\nAnd later the prosecutor again referred to defendant\u2019s partial statement as proof that defendant was shocked to be caught so quickly by the police.\nWe hold that the trial court erred in restricting defendant\u2019s cross-examination of Kupetis. Because the State vigorously argued that the statements affirmatively indicated defendant\u2019s consciousness of his guilt, we cannot say that the error was harmless.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nWHITE, P.J., and McGILLICUDDY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McNAMARA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Margaret M. Drewko and Frank P. Madea, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael Shabat and Maureen A. Hart\u00f3n, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY SHELLY, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 84\u20141438\nOpinion filed March 29, 1985.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Margaret M. Drewko and Frank P. Madea, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael Shabat and Maureen A. Hart\u00f3n, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0197-01",
  "first_page_order": 219,
  "last_page_order": 221
}