{ "id": 2968463, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HAROLD EUGENE WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Wheeler", "decision_date": "1976-07-29", "docket_number": "No. 13070", "first_page": "687", "last_page": "690", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "40 Ill. App. 3d 687" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "320 N.E .2d 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 Ill. App. 3d 874", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2507342 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "880" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/23/0874-01" ] }, { "cite": "308 N.E.2d 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "371, 372" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Ill. App. 3d 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2514931 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/17/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 N.E. 2d 417", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 Ill. App. 2d 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5323139 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/92/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 N.E.2d 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 Ill. App. 2d 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2572346 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/77/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N.E.2d 191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "406 Ill. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2634714 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/406/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 N.E.2d 812", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "814" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill. 2d 617", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2828416 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "620" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/30/0617-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Ill. 2d 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2702991 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/5/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ill. 2d 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2738737 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/20/0011-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 424, "char_count": 7187, "ocr_confidence": 0.871, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08629016595176012 }, "sha256": "f18cf4b2149fb559d79a830c6fe06875b064a02b9eea80422f23eae47f08cf53", "simhash": "1:8a10f8ec1ca3167a", "word_count": 1186 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:14.004939+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. HAROLD EUGENE WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE GREEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Harold Eugene Wheeler was found guilty of the offense of burglary after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of McLean County. Judgment was entered on the verdict and defendant was sentenced to 5 to 15 years in the penitentiary.\nDefendant\u2019s sole contention on appeal is that he was denied a fair trial as a result of the admission of testimony that the burglary victim identified defendant as the burglar from photographs shown to him at police headquarters and that the photographs shown to the victim were of \u201cpeople that have been arrested.\u201d He claims that this testimony was prejudicial because it \u201ccarried the clear implication that defendant had previously been involved in criminal activity.\u201d\nAt trial Otis Iseminger, Jr., the burglary victim, testified for the State that in March 1974 he was employed as an attendant at a gasoline station in Bloomington, Illinois, and that on the night of March 24,1974, he slept in the back room of the station. At about 3:30 a.m. he was awakened by a car with a loud muffler and the ringing of the driveway bell. A few moments later he heard a scratching noise coming from the station office. He walked into the bay area of the station and saw a car in the driveway. He then went to the door to the office and saw a man standing about 5 feet away behind the cash register. He was able to see the man\u2019s profile and face. After about 10 or 15 seconds the man turned, saw Iseminger, ran outside, and jumped into the passenger side of the car, which immediately drove off.\nIseminger identified defendant as the man he saw in the service station office. He had seen defendant a few times before the burglary but did not know his name. Iseminger also testified that when the police arrived he told them he had seen defendant before. The next morning he went to the Bloomington Police Department and identified defendant from a group of photographs on display there. Defense counsel objected to this testimony but did not state any reason for the objection. The objection was overruled. Defendant then moved for a mistrial based on Iseminger\u2019s testimony that defendant had been identified from police photographs, which motion was denied.\nSue Bailey testified for the State that she was employed in the Records Division of the Bloomington Police Department and that Iseminger had come into the Records Division on March 25, 1974. In response to the prosecutor\u2019s question, \u201cAnd what did Mr. Iseminger do when he came into the Records Division,\u201d she stated, without objection, that Iseminger \u201ccame in to look at some photographs which we have in the Records Division of people that have been arrested.\u201d She also testified that after looking at about 40 photographs Iseminger picked out a picture of defendant. After Ms. Bailey completed her testimony, defense counsel asked for a mistrial because of her testimony that defendant had been identified from a group of photographs of persons who have been arrested. The motion was denied.\nDefendant offered an alibi defense. He and his girlfriend testified that they went to a drivein movie in Bloomington on the evening of March 24, 1974, and returned to their home in Lexington before midnight. They went right to bed when they got home and did not get up before 8 o\u2019clock the next morning.\nDefendant\u2019s contention that admission of the testimony concerning the source of the photographs from which he was identified was prejudicial error is based on the general rule that evidence of other crimes committed by defendant is not admissible because of its prejudicial effect of raising the inference that, because defendant has committed other offenses, he is likely to have committed the offense in question. However, \u201ca recognized exception to the general rule exists where the evidence tends to aid in the identification of the accused as the person who committed the particular crime charged. People v. Tranowski, 20 Ill. 2d 11; People v. Lehman, 5 Ill. 2d 337.\u201d People v. Lewis (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 617, 620, 198 N.E.2d 812, 814.\nWith regard to the use of police photographs, the Supreme Court has indicated that, where relevant to the issue of identity, testimony concerning police photographs or admission of the photographs themselves is not prejudicial error per se even though a prior criminal record may be inferred from such evidence. (People v. Maffioli (1950), 406 Ill. 315, 94 N.E.2d 191.) More recently in both People v. Ogden (1966), 77 Ill. App. 2d 312, 222 N.E.2d 329, and People v. Lewis (1968), 92 Ill. App. 2d 463, 236 N.E. 2d 417, testimony concerning identification from police photographs was held not to constitute prejudicial error on the basis that the photographs themselves were not admitted and no other references were made to defendant\u2019s prior criminal record. Ogden involved a witness\u2019 testimony that he had identified defendant from photographs in a \u201cmug book,\u201d and the court stated that while it did not favor use of the term \u201cmug book,\u201d such a reference did not require reversal.\nIn People v. Coleman (1974), 17 Ill. App. 3d 421, 431, 308 N.E.2d 364, 371, 372, testimony that defendant was identified from records and photographs obtained at \u201c11th and State\u201d (police headquarters) was held not to constitute reversible error. However, in that case no objection was made to the testimony at trial.\nFinally, in People v. Longstreet (1974), 23 Ill. App. 3d 874, 880, 320 N.E .2d 529, 533, testimony that defendant was identified from photographs of \u201cpeople that my unit has arrested for robberies or unlawful use of weapons, carrying a gun in the street\u201d was held not to constitute prejudicial error. There the court noted that this reference to the source of the photographs directly related to the issue of identification and that the State made no further references to defendant\u2019s prior unrelated criminal activities.\nIn the instant case, Iseminger\u2019s testimony that he identified defendant from police photographs and Ms. Bailey\u2019s testimony that the photographs were of people who have been arrested appears no more prejudicial than the reference to \u201cmug books\u201d in Ogden or the reference to photographs of people \u201carrested for robberies or unlawful use of weapons\u201d in Longstreet. Here, the testimony of both witnesses directly related to the issue of identification. Ms'. Bailey\u2019s comment on the source of police photographs was not responsive to the prosecutor\u2019s question, and no other reference was made to defendant\u2019s police record. We therefore conclude that neither Iseminger\u2019s nor Ms. Bailey\u2019s testimony can be considered reversible error.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of McLean County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nTRAPP, P. J., and SIMKINS, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE GREEN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Richard J. Wilson and John L. Swartz, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "Paul R. Welch, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (G. Michael Prall and Jeffrey B. Levens, 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. HAROLD EUGENE WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 13070\nOpinion filed July 29, 1976.\nRichard J. Wilson and John L. Swartz, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nPaul R. Welch, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (G. Michael Prall and Jeffrey B. Levens, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0687-01", "first_page_order": 715, "last_page_order": 718 }