{ "id": 2481045, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Robinson", "decision_date": "1990-05-01", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201488\u20142188", "first_page": "1012", "last_page": "1016", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "197 Ill. App. 3d 1012" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "106 S. Ct. 267", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 L. Ed. 2d 274", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "474 U.S. 935", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6436229, 6436368, 6436471, 6436536, 6436639 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/474/0935-01", "/us/474/0935-02", "/us/474/0935-03", "/us/474/0935-04", "/us/474/0935-05" ] }, { "cite": "478 N.E.2d 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 Ill. 2d 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3138930 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/106/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 N.E.2d 733", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "735" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5428466 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/63/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "436 N.E.2d 667", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 Ill. App. 3d 993", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3030849 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/106/0993-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 N.E.2d 576", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 Ill. App. 3d 741", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5437934 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/111/0741-01" ] }, { "cite": "369 N.E.2d 849", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "852-53" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5810701 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258-59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/68/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 N.E.2d 115", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 777", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3400034 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/54/0777-01" ] }, { "cite": "540 N.E.2d 468", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 Ill. App. 3d 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2640128 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/184/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 N.E.2d 214", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 Ill. 2d 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2925937 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/53/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 S. Ct. 651", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 L. Ed. 2d 555", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "369 U.S. 808", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6181569, 6181418, 6181770, 6180908, 6181262, 6180593, 6180760, 6181085 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/369/0808-07", "/us/369/0808-06", "/us/369/0808-08", "/us/369/0808-03", "/us/369/0808-05", "/us/369/0808-01", "/us/369/0808-02", "/us/369/0808-04" ] }, { "cite": "178 N.E.2d 389", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "391" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 Ill. 2d 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2797074 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "283" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/23/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 N.E.2d 1124", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1129-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 Ill. 2d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5550081 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "185-90" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/122/0176-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 518, "char_count": 7814, "ocr_confidence": 0.766, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.20622584394152e-08, "percentile": 0.38428919987227056 }, "sha256": "afa1d07cfeb2a70ba1e4d73335467dc2349d3073ae34118e529890b928111964", "simhash": "1:a8f24cccb7c1adc7", "word_count": 1284 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:08:36.740176+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. JEFFREY ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SCARIANO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a bench trial, defendant was convicted of residential burglary and sentenced to five years\u2019 imprisonment. He now appeals his conviction and sentence, alleging that the trial judge\u2019s finding of guilt was based in part on inadmissible hearsay evidence and was therefore a product of prejudicial error. We affirm.\nDefendant was charged by information with one count of residential burglary (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 19 \u2014 3) and convicted on June 7, 1988. At trial, the State presented three witnesses: the victim, Laura Smart; her boyfriend, Darrius Thomas; and Chicago police officer Thomas McCann. Defendant testified on his own behalf. The parties stipulated for the purpose of impeachment that on August 28, 1986, defendant had been convicted of possession of a stolen motor vehicle (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95^2, par. 4 \u2014 103) and sentenced to two years\u2019 probation.\nSmart testified that at about 10:30 p.m. on January 30, 1988, she left her apartment at 13333 South Greenwood in Chicago, locking her door and leaving no one inside. When she returned at about 2:30 p.m. the following day, she noticed that her back door was open and that a panel on the door had been kicked in. Four items were missing from her apartment: a stereo, a color television, a video cassette recorder and a gold watch. Smart reported the burglary to the police and also enlisted the aid of her boyfriend, Thomas, to help locate her property.\nThomas testified that he questioned various people in the neighborhood about the stolen property. On February 4, 1988, he had a telephone conversation with- defendant, who admitted having the stereo and video cassette recorder. They arranged to meet immediately afterward, at which time defendant personally handed over the stereo to Thomas and directed a juvenile to give him the video cassette recorder. During the exchange, defendant told Thomas that he would have never burglarized Smart\u2019s apartment had he known to whom it belonged. The items that defendant returned were those stolen from Smart\u2019s apartment.\nOfficer McCann testified that he and two other police officers arrested defendant pursuant to the information Thomas had given them and that, after being advised of his rights, defendant admitted participating in the burglary. He told the officers that he and two juveniles, Kevin Gloster and Mark Gregory, entered Smart\u2019s apartment after one of the juveniles kicked out a door panel and reached in to unlock the door. Defendant admitted removing a video cassette recorder and watch from the apartment. During cross-examination, Officer McCann stated that defendant confessed a second time at the police station, but that McCann never reduced the confession to writing. Gloster had also admitted participating in the burglary.\nDuring his own testimony in chief, defendant denied any complicity in the burglary, but acknowledged having received a telephone call from Thomas on February 4, 1988. According to defendant:\n\u201c[Thomas] called my house and told me his house had been broken in, and that a VCR, portable radio, stereo, [sic] and that Kevin and some other guy told him I had broke into the house.\u201d\nAlthough defendant then admitted that he returned a portable radio and a video cassette recorder to Thomas, he said that he never confessed participating in the burglary to Officer McCann. In fact, he testified that he told both Thomas and the officer that he had bought the items for $70 from Gloster.\nAfter hearing arguments, the circuit judge found defendant guilty and made the following finding:\n\u201cYou have an admission or confession, you have corroboration, and the property itself. The defendant was fingered by one of the juvenile offenders of this offense and that\u2019s how he got involved.\u201d\nDefendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by considering incompetent hearsay testimony that he \u201cwas fingered by one of the juvenile offenders of this offense.\u201d Thus, the issue focuses on defendant\u2019s own testimony, quoted above, that Thomas heard from two other individuals that defendant was involved in the burglary.\nThe State argues that defendant waived his alleged error for the reason that he neither objected to the testimony at trial nor raised the error in his post-trial motion. To preserve an error for review, a defendant must do both. (People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 185-90, 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1129-31.) In the present case, however, defense counsel was hardly in a position to object to the admission of the offending testimony because it came from defendant himself in response to a question during direct examination. In an attempt to explain how and why Thomas\u2019 investigative trail led to defendant, his trial attorney questioned him about his telephone conversation with Thomas on February 4, 1988. Among the questions he asked were \u201cAnd what was [the conversation] concerning? What was it about that you talked to Mr. Thomas?\u201d It was in response to these questions that defendant repeated the incriminating hearsay.\nA defendant may not complain of improper evidence if he \u201cprocures, invites or acquiesces\u201d in its admission. (People v. Burage (1961), 23 Ill. 2d 280, 283, 178 N.E.2d 389, 391, cert. denied (1962), 369 U.S. 808, 7 L. Ed. 2d 555, 82 S. Ct. 651; People v. Bell (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 122, 290 N.E.2d 214.) Significantly, in all of the cases addressing this issue, the incriminating evidence emanated from a State witness during cross-examination. (See, e.g., Bell, 53 Ill. 2d 122, 290 N.E.2d 214; Burage, 23 Ill. 2d 280, 178 N.E.2d 389; People v. Chanath (1989), 184 Ill. App. 3d 521, 540 N.E.2d 468; People v. Tribett (1977), 54 Ill. App. 3d 777, 370 N.E.2d 115.) Here, defense counsel asked an open-ended question of his own witness, who provided a responsive answer. Consequently, defendant\u2019s only complaint can be with the question posed and not the answer given. We hold, therefore, that defendant was estopped both from objecting to his own testimony, if he had been so inclined, and later from raising the court\u2019s reliance on the testimony as prejudicial error. See Burage, 23 Ill. 2d 280, 178 N.E.2d 389.\nIt is presumed that in a bench trial a judge has considered only competent evidence in arriving at his verdict. (People v. Gilbert (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 252, 369 N.E.2d 849; People v. Alford (1982), 111 Ill. App. 3d 741, 444 N.E.2d 576; People v. Barbour (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 993, 436 N.E.2d 667.) If the record affirmatively shows the contrary, however, this presumption may be rebutted. (Gilbert, 68 Ill. 2d 252, 369 N.E.2d 849; Alford, 111 Ill. App. 3d 741, 444 N.E.2d 576; Barbour, 106 Ill. App. 3d 993, 436 N.E.2d 667.) We note, however, that if hearsay evidence is admitted without objection, it must be given its \"natural probative effect\u201d (People v. Akis (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 296, 299, 347 N.E.2d 733, 735; People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, 478 N.E.2d 267, cert. denied (1985), 474 U.S. 935, 88 L. Ed. 2d 274, 106 S. Ct. 267); and in light of our conclusion that the hearsay evidence implicating defendant in the burglary was competent ab initio, we find that the record is not only devoid of such a contrary showing, but reinforces the presumption. (See Gilbert, 68 Ill. 2d at 258-59, 369 N.E .2d at 852-53.) Accordingly, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nDiVITO, P.J., and BILANDIC, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SCARIANO" } ], "attorneys": [ "Randolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Cook County (Ira Churgin, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Cecil A. Partee, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Inge Fryklund and Walter P. Hehner, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 1\u201488\u20142188\nOpinion filed May 1, 1990.\nRandolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Cook County (Ira Churgin, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nCecil A. Partee, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Inge Fryklund and Walter P. Hehner, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1012-01", "first_page_order": 1034, "last_page_order": 1038 }