{ "id": 2725128, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT CHRISTY, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Christy", "decision_date": "1976-11-12", "docket_number": "No. 62486", "first_page": "1004", "last_page": "1008", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "43 Ill. App. 3d 1004" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "346 N.E.2d 11", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 3d 464", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2717106 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/37/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 N.E.2d 771", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ill. App. 2d 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2585316 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/72/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 N.E.2d 683", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 Ill. App. 3d 745", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2926558 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/11/0745-01" ] }, { "cite": "281 N.E.2d 626", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 Ill. 2d 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5391225 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/51/0302-01" ] }, { "cite": "308 N.E.2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5404227 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N.E.2d 801", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 Ill. App. 2d 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2543269 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/81/0075-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 562, "char_count": 8140, "ocr_confidence": 0.894, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1736261241180005e-07, "percentile": 0.5869880830890141 }, "sha256": "a0b27e9e7d848aedea3423431b7f01250306046af6ba7b16a300da8dd153ece9", "simhash": "1:d4923db5bce42f90", "word_count": 1368 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:30.289259+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. ROBERT CHRISTY, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, following a jury trial, was convicted of robbery in violation of section 18 \u2014 1 of the Criminal Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 18 \u2014 1.) He was sentenced to a term of 2 to 10 years. On appeal, he contends that remarks by a prosecution witness referring to criminal activity by him, other than that for which he was on trial constituted reversible error.\nAt trial the following pertinent facts were adduced.\nFor the State\nDennis Clegg \u2014 Chicago Police Officer\nOn June 18, 1973, at about 1:30 a.m. he and his partner, Officer McFadden, responded to a call from a fire station at Racine and Wilson where they found Wilma Weston sobbing, crying, screaming and excited. She was extremely nervous and her clothes were in disarray. The whole right side of her body was covered with dirt. They made an investigation and took her statement. The fire station is across the street from Andy\u2019s Lounge. The robbery took place at the alley right at the end of the firehouse where there are six lights.\nWilma Weston\nShe is the complainant. On June 17,1973, about midnight, she sat at the bar in Andy\u2019s Lounge drinking beer and talking to a girl friend. After about one hour, she spoke to defendant whom she knew as \u201cHarold\u201d and had known for two or three years. After 15 or 20 minutes she announced she was going home. As she got up to leave, defendant offered to walk her home. She refused his offer and left. He got up and followed her west on Wilson Avenue. As she crossed Racine, he grabbed her right shoulder. She looked around and saw it was defendant. Defendant said, \u201cWilma, I have been after you a long time. I\u2019m going to get you.\u201d He was standing in front of her. He hit her in the jaw, knocked her down on her right side and dragged her. He grabbed her watch and purse and ran. She screamed and a fireman came to help. She had a *50 check, *20 cash, some change in a change purse, house keys together with her medical, social security cards and some other papers in the purse. She told the police \u201cHarold\u201d did it and that he was wearing dark pants and a striped shirt.\nRobert Lee King\nHe is the manager of Andy\u2019s Lounge. He corroborated the fact that complainant, whom he has known for six years, was in the tavern on the evening in question. At about 1:15 a.m. she said goodbye and started toward the door where defendant was standing. She opened the door and walked out. Defendant followed her.\nAlthough he did not know defendant\u2019s name, he had seen him many times over the last three or four years.\nOn cross-examination the following colloquy concerning defendant occurred:\n\u201cQ. Did you ever have a conversation with him?\nA. Yes, sir, I had a short conversation one time. I was about to bust him in the head.\nQ. So you didn\u2019t like him, did you?\nA. I didn\u2019t have anything against the man. The guy was trying to jackroll a guy in my place.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s objection to King\u2019s last answer was sustained. After argument in chambers the court denied defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial on the basis that defense counsel had invited the witness\u2019s \u201crambling\u201d remarks. When court resumed, the jury was instructed to disregard the witness\u2019s last response.\nKing went on to state that defendant left the tavern about one-half minute after complainant. He watched through the front window and saw that they both walked west on Wilson Avenue.\nHe never saw complainant talk to defendant, however, on redirect examination he testified that she talked to a man at the shuffleboard game, whom he could not \u201cget a good look at.\u201d On re-cross-examination he said this man left the tavern after the conversation. Later on redirect examination he admitted he did not know if the man returned later.\nJohn Murray \u2014 Chicago Police Department Robbery Investigator\nHe investigated Wilma Weston\u2019s complaint. He arranged to meet with her on June 22, 1973, and look for defendant. At the second tavern at which they stopped, she identified defendant as the man who accosted her and took her purse. He arrested defendant.\nOpinion\nDefendant\u2019s sole contention on appeal is that the volunteered remarks of King that defendant had attempted to \u201cjackroll a guy,\u201d constituted reversible error. He argues that this reference by a prosecuting witness to criminal activity, other than that for which he was on trial, irreparably prejudiced the jury despite the admonitions by the court to disregard the remark. This is especially true, he claims, where as here, the conduct mentioned constitutes the same offense as that for which he is on trial.\nAlthough it is error to admit evidence which suggests prior criminal activity by defendant (People v. Colston (1967), 81 Ill. App. 2d 75, 225 N.E.2d 801), where the remarks are inadvertent, isolated, and nonresponsive, quick action by the court in striking the testimony and in giving the jury the proper cautionary instructions, relieves the remarks of any substantial prejudicial effect. People v. Dukett (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 432, 308 N.E.2d 590; People v. Wilson (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 302, 281 N.E.2d 626; People v. Johnson (1973), 11 Ill. App. 3d 745, 297 N.E.2d 683.\nWe find this to be the situation here. King\u2019s comment that defendant had previously tried to \u201cjackroll a guy\u201d was clearly improper and prejudicial. Nonetheless, it appears it was an unintentional and isolated remark. The trial court acted promptly in sustaining defense counsel\u2019s objection and motion to strike and the jury was cautioned to disregard the remark. The motion for a mistrial was, therefore, properly denied.\nDefendant relies principally upon People v. Williams (1966), 72 Ill. App. 2d 96, 218 N.E.2d 771. There, defense counsel during cross-examination elicited testimony from a detective associating defendant to another burglary accomplished in the same manner as that for which he was on trial. Defendant\u2019s objection to the testimony was sustained and the jury was cautioned to disregard the remark; however, his motion for a mistrial was denied. The appellate court reversed and remanded.\nWhile there is a similarity between Williams and this case, defendant in Williams asserted two other grounds as error including the exhibition to the jury of prison photographs of himself bearing the legend \u201cJackson State Prison.\u201d In reversing defendant\u2019s conviction, the Williams court based its decision on all three alleged errors. We think that the prejudice resulting from the combination of these three errors was substantially greater than that created by the isolated remark in the instant case.\nMoreover, even if we thought defendant\u2019s contention had merit, we would still affirm his conviction because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt insofar as the jury\u2019s determination of guilt was concerned. (People v. Henenberg (1976), 37 Ill. App. 3d 464, 346 N.E.2d 11.) Here, the evidence shows that shortly after defendant offered to walk complainant home, he followed her out of the bar. She was attacked less than a block away. Her identification of defendant as the man who robbed her was positive, being based not only on what she saw, but also on what she heard (defendant having addressed her by name). In addition, the fact that she knew defendant two to three years prior to this incident further assures the accuracy of her testimony. The evidence of guilt is substantial. Even if the reference to an extraindictment offense was erroneous, it did not affect the outcome of this case. The verdict would have been the same even if the remark had not been made.\nFor the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSULLIVAN and BARRETT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE LORENZ" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (William F. Krahl, Jr., and Gail Moreland, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Joan S. Cherry, and Linda Dale Woloshin, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT CHRISTY, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 62486\nOpinion filed November 12, 1976.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (William F. Krahl, Jr., and Gail Moreland, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Joan S. Cherry, and Linda Dale Woloshin, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1004-01", "first_page_order": 1034, "last_page_order": 1038 }