{
  "id": 2515644,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Parmley, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Parmley",
  "decision_date": "1974-02-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 73-224",
  "first_page": "885",
  "last_page": "886",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 Ill. App. 3d 885"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "263 N.E.2d 35",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill.2d 395",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2897868
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/46/0395-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 269,
    "char_count": 3476,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.729,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08167039854447113
    },
    "sha256": "3125861db2487b36f0f3e463363260d1fb59ab5530c0d07eeda798b5f0ef487e",
    "simhash": "1:98218e74e0caebf9",
    "word_count": 569
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:57.081722+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. Donald Parmley, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM:\nA jury found the defendant guilty of the offense of attempted murder, and a sentence of from 1 to 5 years was imposed.\nThe defendant claims that testimony of two prosecution witnesses contained inadmissible evidence which was sufficiently prejudicial to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Roxanne Lyons, the defendant\u2019s ex girl friend, gave the following testimony about a conversation she had with the defendant on the date of the alleged offense:\n\u201cQ. Okay. And what was the nature of your conversation, or what exactly was said?\nA. Well he came in there and wanted to get back together again, and I told him no way, that after my car was blown up, which I couldn\u2019t prove that he did it \u2014 \u201d\nDefense counsel immediately objected to the answer and moved that it be stricken and the jury instructed to disregard it. The trial judge replied:\n\u201cAll right. That\u2019ll be sustained, and the jury is instructed to disregard all the remarks pertaining to the bombing of the automobile, and anything pertaining thereafter.\u201d\nIrma Voght, the mother of Roxanne Lyons, was questioned by the State\u2019s Attorney concerning the identification of the defendant\u2019s car as follows:\n\u201cQ. What occasioned you to know the license number?\nA. Well, sir, lately I had thought that maybe I\u2019d need it, and I did need it. I memorized his license plate.\nQ. Why did you do that?\nA. Why did I do it? I guess I realized something was going to take place, because we\u2019d been threatened several times.\u201d\nDefense counsel then moved for a mistrial because witness had indicated that the defendant had threatened her and her daughter in the past. The court denied the motion for a mistrial, but, as then requested by defense counsel, instructed the jury to disregard any comment \u201cwith regal'd to threats.\u201d\nThe defendant contends that the jury had been so impressed with bombings and threats that he could not receive a fair trial. The defendant further asserts that the judge, in instructing the jury to disregard the evidence, merely emphasized the objectionable testimony.\nThe general rule is that evidence of separate offenses unconnected with the crime for which the defendant is charged is incompetent. (People v. Harris, 46 Ill.2d 395, 263 N.E.2d 35.) Assuming that this testimony of Roxanne Lyons and Irma Voght was incompetent, we find that no reversible error exists because, (I) the court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony in question, (2) it does not appear that the State purposely elicited the testimony, and (3) the evidence was so overwhelmingly against the defendant that if error existed, it was harmless. The defendant, in fact, failed to present even one witness to contradict the very substantial prosecution testimony. There appears to be no merit to the defendant\u2019s claim that the trial judge merely emphasized the allegedly objectionable testimony by instructing the jury to disregard it.\nFor the foregoing reasons the defendant\u2019s conviction is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed,\nMr. JUSTICE G. MORAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Leon G. Scroggins, of Kinder, Scroggins & Kinder, of Granite City, for appellant.",
      "Nicholas G. Byron, State\u2019s Attorney, of Edwardsville (James W. Jerz and Martin P. Moltz, of Model District State\u2019s Attorneys Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Parmley, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 73-224;\nFifth District\nFebruary 28, 1974.\nG. MORAN, J., took no part.\nLeon G. Scroggins, of Kinder, Scroggins & Kinder, of Granite City, for appellant.\nNicholas G. Byron, State\u2019s Attorney, of Edwardsville (James W. Jerz and Martin P. Moltz, of Model District State\u2019s Attorneys Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0885-01",
  "first_page_order": 907,
  "last_page_order": 908
}