{ "id": 2914269, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathan McDowell, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. McDowell", "decision_date": "1972-03-21", "docket_number": "No. 70\u2014193", "first_page": "382", "last_page": "385", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 382" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "386 U.S. 18", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168882 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ill.App.3d 965", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2749300 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/2/0965-01" ] }, { "cite": "426 F.2d 1129", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2247089 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/426/1129-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 N.E.2d 601", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 Ill.App.2d 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2742040 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/129/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ill.App.3d 965", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2749300 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/2/0965-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 459, "char_count": 7732, "ocr_confidence": 0.722, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.552013297283919e-07, "percentile": 0.6747876034471508 }, "sha256": "dc39613ffd67e9904a96162bd746d4fa26042b36d03189026a8a29b54324121d", "simhash": "1:f8f4192d64aeef9c", "word_count": 1308 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:19.595106+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. Nathan McDowell, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Nathan McDowell, was found guilty by a jury of theft. The Circuit Court of Peoria County entered its judgment of conviction and sentenced defendant to a term of from 1 to 10 years in the penitentiary from which judgment and sentence defendant appeals.\nOn April 18, 1970, at about noon, George Sommer, a photographer, parked his car on MacArthur Street in Peoria in front of a florist shop. Sommer was in the florist shop when a telephone call was received from someone in the neighborhood reporting that a car was being broken into. The identity of the caller was never ascertained. After the florist called the police, Sommer went out to his car and found that the rear side window had been broken with a brick which was then lying on the back seat. Sommer\u2019s camera, a 4 x 5 speed graphic and two cases had been taken from his car. Sommer looked up and down the streets in the area for a few minutes saw no one and returned to the florist shop.\nJerome Andrews who resided four houses away from the florist shop, came to the shop apparently after the police arrived and indicated that he had seen defendant walking along the street away from the florist shop carrying a camera and two black cases. According to Andrews he had casually known defendant for 13 yeai-s. The witness also described the appearance of another man walking with defendant in the same direction.\nAccording to the testimony of Nicholson, the owner of the 301 Club, located about a block from the florist shop, McDowell and a companion came into his place of business between 2 and 3 o\u2019clock in the afternoon of April 18th, the day of the theft. McDowell who was known to the witness, offered to sell a camera to the witness for $30.00, the witness declining to make the purchase. McDowell and his companion left the 301 Club and shortly thereafter Sgt. Walker of the Peoria Police Department appeared and was told about the previous incident. Sometime later McDowell returned to the 301 Club and was arrested. His presence was reported to Sgt. Walker by Nicholson. At the time of his arrest in the 301 Club none of the items stolen from the Sommer car were in McDowell\u2019s possession.\nAccording to the testimony of Sgt. Walker he was told by Hatchett, the bartender at Ginny\u2019s Tavern, that McDowell and Butch Jackson were in his tavern on the afternoon of Saturday, April 18th and had a camera which they tried to sell him but which he refused to buy. According to Hatchett\u2019s statement to Sgt. Walker both men then left but later Jackson returned alone and at that time Hatchett bought a camera from Jackson for $40.00.\nOn Sunday morning, April 19, 1970, Sgt. Walker got the camera which Hachett had purchased and returned to the police station where it was identified by Sommer as the camera stolen from his car on the previous day. Defendant was confronted with the camera and the fact of its identification by Sommer and upon further questioning agreed to go with Sgt. Walker and Sommer to a place where the other equipment might be hidden. In the company of Sommer, Sgt. Walker and another policeman, McDowell went to a house near the vicinity of the 301 Club and indicated that other equipment might be hidden under the porch. Two camera bags containing light meter and lenses were discovered under the porch and identified by Sommer as being part of the other equipment taken from his car.\nBoth Jackson and McDowell were charged with the theft but their cases were severed and only McDowell is a defendant in this case. Defendant did not testify and offered no evidence in his own behalf.\nIn seeking to reverse his conviction defendant argues (1) improper and prejudicial evidence was admitted, (2) the evidence is Insufficient to support the verdict and (3) the sentence imposed is excessive.\nWith respect to defendants first assignment of error regarding improper evidence it appears that after defendant was arrested by Sgt. Walker he was taken to the Peoria Police Station. According to the testimony of Sgt. Walker he was at that time given his Miranda warnings and in open court Walker read the specific warnings given defendant from a card embodying the appropriate warnings as required by Miranda. After defendant was given such warnings Walker testified that \u201cMcDowell at that time said he didn\u2019t want to talk about it, he wasn\u2019t responsible for it * *\nDefendant argues that the testimony regarding the Miranda warnings and his refusal to make any statement was irrelevant and prejudicial. According to the State no objection to the testimony was made by defendant at the time of trial, no motion to suppress Walker\u2019s testimony had been made prior to trial and the statement was favorable to the defendant and hence could not be prejudicial.\nIn People v. Lampson, 129 Ill.App.2d 72, 262 N.E.2d 601 and United States v. Kroslack, 426 F.2d 1129, the Court declared that the exercise of a defendant\u2019s constitutional right to decline to make a statement before trial was of no probative value in determining guilt or innocence. To permit the introduction of such testimony would impair or penalize the exercise of a constitutional right.\nIn People v. Johnson, 2 Ill.App.3d 965 (Third Dist.) the court held that notwithstanding defendant\u2019s failure to object to the type of testimony presented in this case nevertheless the issue might be considered under the doctrine of \u201cplain error\u201d, Supreme Court Rule 615(a). In that case the court concluded that the testimony even though erroneous was harmless error not justifying a new trial.\nIn the case at bar we believe the testimony regarding the defendants refusal to make a statement was improper and the reason why defendant refused to make the statement does not change the rule. The testimony regarding the Miranda warnings and the defendant\u2019s response could have contributed to the finding of guilty, at any rate when considered with the evidence which is less than overwhelming we are unable to say beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 and People v. Johnson, 2 Ill.App.3d 965.\nFrom the testimony regarding the giving of the Miranda warnings and defendant\u2019s response thereto the record affirmatively shows that defendant did not knowingly waive his rights in accord with the Miranda rule. Although this issue is not before us the admissibility of defendant\u2019s admissions on the following morning could be affected by defendant\u2019s waiver or non-waiver of his rights. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Circuit Court of Peoria County is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that defendant be granted a new trial.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nDIXON, J. concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER" }, { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE ALLOY,\ndissenting:\nI do not believe that the principle of determining the propriety of the testimony with respect to the Miranda warnings even though no objection was made should be applied in this case. Not only was no objection made but the response of the defendant was that he did not want to talle about it and was not responsible for the theft. The basis of determining the propriety of evidence (unobjected to) which might be improper, is whether the ends of justice would be served by such consideration, and whether in fact the evidence would require remandment. (People v. Johnson, 2 Ill.App.3d 965.) I do not believe that this principle should apply in view of all the evidence in this case.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE ALLOY," } ], "attorneys": [ "James Geis, of Defender Project, of Ottawa, for appellant.", "Roland N. Litterst, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria, for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathan McDowell, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 70\u2014193;\nThird District\nMarch 21, 1972.\nJames Geis, of Defender Project, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nRoland N. Litterst, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria, for the People." }, "file_name": "0382-01", "first_page_order": 402, "last_page_order": 405 }