{ "id": 3505737, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE YELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Yelliott", "decision_date": "1987-06-02", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201486\u20140307", "first_page": "601", "last_page": "604", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 601" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "194 N.E.2d 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill. 2d 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2823362 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/29/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "423 N.E.2d 1185", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 Ill. App. 3d 1005", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3110796 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/97/1005-01" ] }, { "cite": "366 N.E.2d 528", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 3d 721", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3384409 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/51/0721-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N.E.2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "598" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "413 Ill. 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5314188 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/413/0218-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 329, "char_count": 4936, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0679967066462027e-07, "percentile": 0.5590555665600582 }, "sha256": "1b4a859040c47eb75071536f899888a8f00655c84748bdd4498740e94e521681", "simhash": "1:b3af2e9c62535e8c", "word_count": 841 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:40.510932+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. GEORGE YELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SCOTT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn December 16, 1984, at approximately 11 p.m., two masked men armed with a handgun entered the Coachman Motel in Blooming-ton, Illinois, and committed the offense of armed robbery by obtaining money from the cash register and certain property from Sylvester Campbell, who was working at the counter of the motel.\nThe defendant, George Yelliott, was indicted for the offense of armed robbery. During the ensuing trial, Mr. Campbell was unable to identify either of the men involved or the gun used in commission of the offense. A number of witnesses testified. Several witnesses were convicted felons whose testimony was conflicting and suspect. During the course of the trial, a handgun discovered some weeks after the crime and discovered in a dresser drawer located in an apartment of Mike Edwards was admitted into evidence and during closing argument the prosecutor represented that the handgun had been \u201cprocured\u201d and \u201cused\u201d by the defendant in the robbery.\nAfter deliberating over 10 hours, the jury found the defendant guilty of armed robbery and the circuit court of McLean County sentenced him to a term of 10 years\u2019 imprisonment.\nThe defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial because the trial court admitted into evidence a handgun which had no connection with either him or the crime and that it was error to permit the prosecutor to misstate the evidence that the gun had been procured by him (defendant) and used in the crime.\nWe agree. The record discloses that, over objection by the defense, the State was allowed to elicit evidence that the gun was taken from a dresser drawer in a bedroom under the control of Mike Edwards. There was no evidence that the defendant had been in the bedroom or that he associated with Edwards. The closest association that the defendant had with Edwards is that one witness testified that a group of people including the defendant was in Edwards\u2019 apartment on the evening of the crime having a few drinks. There was no evidence even indicating that the gun had been removed from the dresser drawer. There was no evidence that defendant had been observed with the gun or that it was the same weapon used in the robbery. In fact, John Turner, testifying for the defense, stated that he had pled guilty to the Coachman Motel robbery and was currently serving an eight-year sentence. He further testified that defendant wasn\u2019t with him in the commission of the crime and that the gun in question was not the one used.\nA gun must be sufficiently connected with a crime to be relevant evidence. Our supreme court has stated:\n\u201cWe have found no case upholding the admission into evidence of weapons not proved to be in the possession or under the control of the defendant.\u201d People v. Smith (1952), 413 Ill. 218, 221, 108 N.E.2d 596, 598.\nThe cases of People v. Wade (1977), 51 Ill. App. 3d 721, 366 N.E.2d 528, and People v. Suerth (1981), 97 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 423 N.E.2d 1185, also support the proposition that a gun must be sufficiently connected with the crime to be relevant evidence. In the instant case there is no evidence to support a finding that the gun was ever in possession of the defendant. As to the gun\u2019s relationship with the crime, there is uncontradicted evidence that it was not the weapon used.\nThe inadmissible evidence, \u201cthe gun,\u201d was used by the prosecutor in closing argument when he stated:\n\u201cWhat happened on the 16th was that there was a get-together at several places Sunday afternoon watching football up on Roosevelt Street, then down to Mike Edwards\u2019 place. Same place, interestingly enough, a gun will be found later on the investigation; down at Edwards\u2019 place.\n* * *\nAnd I submit that we have shown that there is access to the gun that\u2019s here in evidence by the defendant at the Edwards\u2019. That gun was procured and that gun was used by Mr. Turner and Mr. Yelliott in an armed robbery ***.\u201d\nIt is well established that a fact not based upon evidence in the case may not be properly argued to the jury. (People v. Beier (1963), 29 Ill. 2d 511, 194 N.E.2d 280.) The prosecutor\u2019s remarks in the instant case were not supported by the evidence and served only to arouse the jury and prejudice the defendant\u2019s position.\nFor the reasons set forth the judgment of conviction of the defendant by the circuit court of McLean County is reversed and this cause is remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nHEIPLE and STOUDER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SCOTT" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel D. Yuhas and Gary R. Peterson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "Ronald C. Dozier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Rebecca L. White, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE YELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201486\u20140307\nOpinion filed June 2, 1987.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Gary R. Peterson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nRonald C. Dozier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Rebecca L. White, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0601-01", "first_page_order": 623, "last_page_order": 626 }