{
  "id": 5796233,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISLAM PINJOLI, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Pinjoli",
  "decision_date": "1991-10-07",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 3\u201491\u20140012, 3\u201491\u20140013 cons.",
  "first_page": "254",
  "last_page": "256",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 Ill. App. 3d 254"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "550 N.E.2d 677",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 Ill. App. 3d 1001",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2496691
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/193/1001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "490 N.E.2d 1361",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 1036",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3496532
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/141/1036-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 4425,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.782,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17044449309592954
    },
    "sha256": "4ede630b9b8bfb158d6b2537e446cc007d7463de5417aa877b80fe48395e8536",
    "simhash": "1:8a4e75bf43683df4",
    "word_count": 732
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:34.404944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISLAM PINJOLI, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HAASE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Islam Pinjoli, was charged by indictment with the offense of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver (case number 90 \u2014 CF\u2014140) and the offense of eavesdropping (case number 90 \u2014 CF\u2014141) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 561/2, par. 1401(a)(2); ch. 38, par. 14 \u2014 2). He filed three motions to dismiss the indictments. Thereafter, the trial court granted his third motion. The State appeals, and we reverse and remand.\nThe record shows that the defendant filed a motion to dismiss his indictment in case number 90 \u2014 CF\u2014140. He alleged that the indictment was improper because it grew \u201cout of a set of facts and evidence framed and concocted by the State and its agents.\u201d Following a hearing on this motion, the trial court denied it. A similar motion was filed in case number 90 \u2014 CF\u2014141, wherein the defendant alleged that it was necessary for him to eavesdrop to defend himself against the State\u2019s conspiracy. No hearing has been held on that motion. The defendant also filed a third motion incorporating both cases, alleging that his indictments should be dismissed because the State had introduced evidence at the grand jury hearing showing that he had a prior conviction for a drug offense.\nFollowing a hearing on the third motion, the trial court dismissed both indictments against the defendant. The court found that the evidence of the prior conviction had a prejudicial effect on the defendant and, as such, the grand jury should not have heard the evidence.\nThe record also shows that the defendant testified before the grand jury. In addition, it shows that a hearing was not held on defendant\u2019s motion alleging that it was necessary for him to eavesdrop to defend himself against the State\u2019s conspiracy in case number 90 \u2014 CF\u2014141. Finally, it shows that the defendant did not contend, nor did the trial court find, that insufficient evidence was introduced to support the indictments.\nOn appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictments. Specifically, it contends that evidence of the defendant\u2019s prior conviction was properly admitted for impeachment purposes.\nIt is well settled that grand jury proceedings are not restrained by the technical, procedural, and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials. (In re D.T. (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 1036, 490 N.E.2d 1361.) It is also well settled that even at trial a defendant\u2019s prior conviction may be introduced for impeachment purposes if he testifies. (People v. Davis (1990), 193 Ill. App. 3d 1001, 550 N.E.2d 677.) If a defendant can be impeached when he testifies at trial, we find no basis for saying that he cannot be impeached with a prior conviction when he testifies before a grand jury.\nHere, we find that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictments. The evidence showed that the defendant testified before the grand jury. As such, the State could introduce impeachment evidence, including evidence of his prior conviction. We note that the cases cited by the defendant in support of his position are all distinguishable. Therefore, we conclude that the indictments in cases numbers 90\u2014 CF \u2014 140 and 90 \u2014 CF\u2014141 should be reinstated.\nHowever, regarding case number 90 \u2014 CF\u2014141, we note that the defendant was not given a hearing on his motion to dismiss filed in that case. Due to our finding that the court erred in dismissing the indictments, we conclude that the cause must be remanded for a hearing on the defendant\u2019s remaining motion. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court\u2019s decision in cases numbers 90 \u2014 CF\u2014140 and 90 \u2014 CF\u2014141 and reinstate the defendant\u2019s indictments. On remand, the trial court shall hold a hearing on the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss in case number 90 \u2014 CF\u2014141.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Whiteside County is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision.\nReversed and remanded.\nGORMAN and McCUSKEY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HAASE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gary L. Spencer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morrison (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.",
      "George C. Howard, of George C. Howard, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISLAM PINJOLI, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNos. 3 \u2014 91\u20140012, 3 \u2014 91\u20140013 cons.\nOpinion filed October 7, 1991.\nGary L. Spencer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morrison (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nGeorge C. Howard, of George C. Howard, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0254-01",
  "first_page_order": 276,
  "last_page_order": 278
}