{
  "id": 2962034,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sam Rinaldo, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Rinaldo",
  "decision_date": "1976-01-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-268",
  "first_page": "999",
  "last_page": "1002",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 999"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "45 Ill.2d 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2896442
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "580"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/45/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill.2d 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5352878
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "38"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/25/0032-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill.App.3d 907",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2507736
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "915"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/23/0907-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill.App.3d 890",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2625081
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "897-98"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/30/0890-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill.2d 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2778187
      ],
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "166"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/12/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill.2d 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5408291
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "238"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/57/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 U.S. 53",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6159521
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "60-61"
        },
        {
          "page": "645-46"
        },
        {
          "page": "628-29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/353/0053-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 300",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6174244
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "310"
        },
        {
          "page": "70"
        },
        {
          "page": "1061-62"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0300-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "449 F.2d 1066",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        799209,
        3584692
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1070"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/449/1066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "469 F.2d 1065",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        257819
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1066"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/469/1065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "472 F.2d 111",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1555
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "113"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/472/0111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill.2d 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2860072
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "558"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/38/0552-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill.2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5414551
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "12"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/60/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill.App.3d 1094",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2703638
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1099"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/25/1094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill.2d 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2881138
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "128"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/34/0125-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 487,
    "char_count": 6471,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.74,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0267436948776858e-07,
      "percentile": 0.546905823466928
    },
    "sha256": "4ca7f31f577d3a461e632619e18d0b40a18e21f33c01e8770a712740eac44605",
    "simhash": "1:4158ab0b7abf0ab3",
    "word_count": 1048
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:26.295263+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. Sam Rinaldo, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn October 20, 1972, defendant was indicted for the crime of theft over $150, having been charged with knowingly receiving stolen property. After being found guilty by a jury, he was sentenced to serve 60 days under a work release program and two years\u2019 probation. Defendant appeals alleging that reversible errors were committed during his trial.\nIt was established that on October 19, 1972, a warehouse delivery truck unloaded a stereo console unit outside the Mitchell Radio & Appliance store in Rockford. Shortly after 3 p.m. the unattended unit was stolen. Its value was fixed at $249.95.\nDefendant\u2019s bakery had been under police surveillance since late September of 1972. At approximately 3:45 p.m. on October 19, Rockford police officers on duty observed Blue Gilbert, and Clarence Miller, a known heroin addict, arrive at the bakery in an automobile. Miller got out of the car and entered the bakery, then left the shop, walked to its attached garage and unlocked the doors. Miller\u2019s companion backed the car into the driveway; the two removed from the trunk what appeared to be a large stereo or television unit and placed it in the garage. Miller returned to the bakery, spoke briefly with defendant and then he and Gilbert departed.\nThe next day, a search warrant was issued on the basis of a tip from an anonymous informer saying that defendant was engaged in the business of buying and selling stolen goods and that a stereo unit, taken from the Mitchell Radio & Appliance store, could be found in defendant\u2019s garage. Pursuant to the warrant, the police searched the garage and found the stolen stereo unit.\nIntroduced at trial, over defendant\u2019s objection, were photographs taken by one of the officers during surveillance of defendant\u2019s bakery. The most recent of the photos was taken several weeks prior to the theft of the stereo unit and showed defendant associating with Miller in and around the bakery. Defendant contends that the photos were admitted in error in that they were irrelevant and prejudicial.\nThe uncontradicted circumstantial evidence at trial tended to establish that Clarence Miller was involved in the original theft of the stereo and had transported it to defendant\u2019s garage. The photographs, establishing defendant\u2019s prior relationship with Miller, rendered it more probable that defendant knew the illegal nature of the stored goods. (See Marut v. Costello, 34 Ill.2d 125, 128 (1966); Calcese v. Cunningham Cartage, Inc., 25 Ill.App.3d 1094, 1099 (1975); McCormick On Evidence 437 ( 2d ed. 1972).) We therefore find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these photographs into evidence. People v. Williams, 60 Ill.2d 1, 12 (1975); People v. Harris, 38 Ill.2d 552, 558 (1967).\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred by failing to compel the State to disclose the name and address of the informer on whose tip the search warrant was issued. Although defendant moved for disclosure of the informant\u2019s identity, the State refused and the trial court upheld that refusal. The defendant\u2019s request for disclosure of an informant\u2019s identity is not to be granted automatically. Where a request has been denied by the prosecution, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating to the court the necessity for disclosure in his particular case. (United States v. Alvarez, 472 F.2d 111, 113 (9th Cir. 1973); United States v. Alvarez, 469 F.2d 1065, 1066 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Skeens, 449 F.2d 1066, 1070 (D.C. Cir. 1971).) In determining whether an informant\u2019s identity should be disclosed, it is necessary for the court to balance the defendant\u2019s need for the identity of the informant for the purpose of preparing an adequate defense against the public interest in protecting the informant\u2019s identity, thereby encouraging citizen participation in crime control. (McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 310, 18 L.Ed.2d 62, 70, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 1061-62 (1967); Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61, 1 L.Ed.2d 639, 645-46, 77 S.Ct. 623, 628-29 (1957).) Crucial to the court\u2019s consideration is the circumstance of the informant being a participant in or a witness to the crime charged. See People v. Lewis, 57 Ill.2d 232, 238 (1974); People v. Mack, 12 Ill.2d 151, 166 (1957).\nIn the record before us, there is nothing to suggest that the informant witnessed or participated in the theft. No facts have been brought to our attention which would support defendant\u2019s need for the informant\u2019s identity. Thus, defendant did not meet his burden and the trial court was correct in not requiring disclosure.\nDefendant\u2019s final contention is that the prosecuting attorney committed reversible error during his closing argument to the jury. During summation, the State\u2019s Attorney remarked that defendant knew Miller was a heroin addict because the defense had brought out that defendant and his son had mentioned such fact. The State went on: \u201cWhy is that important? Well, I think it\u2019s common everyday household knowledge that heroin addicts steal to support their habit. I don\u2019t think anybody would argue that.\u201d There was an objection. The prosecutor then withdrew the statement but went on to say: \u201cI am sorry, heroin addicts do not steal, ladies and gentlemen. I don\u2019t know why such a crazy idea ever crossed my mind.\u201d\nThe generalization that all heroin addicts steal to support their habits is unsupported by the evidence and was therefore improper. (See People v. Delgado, 30 Ill.App.3d 890, 897-98 (1975); People v. Weathers, 23 Ill.App.3d 907, 915 (1974).) We do not feel, however, that the impropriety amounted to reversible error in this case. While we do not condone the remark or the flippant way in which the prosecutor withdrew it, we are of the opinion that neither was of such magnitude as to warrant a conclusion that, had they not been said, the jury would have held differently. People v. Naujokas, 25 Ill.2d 32, 38 (1962); People v. Koshiol, 45 Ill.2d 573, 580 (1970).\nWe affirm defendant\u2019s conviction.\nAffirmed.\nRECHENMACHER, P. J., and DIXON, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Angelo Bruscato, of Rockford, for appellant.",
      "Philip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (James W. Jerz and Martin P, Moltz, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sam Rinaldo, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 74-268;\nSecond District (2nd Division)\nJanuary 22, 1976.\nAngelo Bruscato, of Rockford, for appellant.\nPhilip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (James W. Jerz and Martin P, Moltz, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0999-01",
  "first_page_order": 1025,
  "last_page_order": 1028
}