{
  "id": 3325227,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY LONG, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Long",
  "decision_date": "1978-09-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 77-1681",
  "first_page": "21",
  "last_page": "25",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 Ill. App. 3d 21"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "237 N.E.2d 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2857846
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/40/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 N.E.2d 227",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. App. 3d 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2801910
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/38/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 N.E.2d 709",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ill. 2d 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2708271
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/6/0494-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N.E.2d 825",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. 2d 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2770583
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/14/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.E.2d 191",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "406 Ill. 315",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2634714
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/406/0315-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.E.2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. 2d 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5394563
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/52/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.E.2d 77",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. App. 3d 643",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2854346
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/12/0643-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 N.E.2d 804",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 3d 470",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5627358
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/58/0470-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.E.2d 190",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 Ill. App. 2d 324",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1585459
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/118/0324-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.E.2d 31",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "363 Ill. 403",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2589703
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/363/0403-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 430,
    "char_count": 6889,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.846,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1731649875663604e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5868751421414916
    },
    "sha256": "ee94d0f45dee64ec1055a7bfa4130e2e4e3222f83a63062598bcd57a1c72d631",
    "simhash": "1:8b32075536a6dce7",
    "word_count": 1098
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:44:41.585178+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. JIMMY LONG, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Jimmy Long, was charged with armed robbery and aggravated battery. A jury found him guilty of both crimes and the court sentenced him to four to seven years for armed robbery only. On appeal defendant contends that there was a fatal variance between the bill of particulars and the proof adduced at trial; that the trial court erred in permitting testimony concerning photographic identification of defendant; that the cross-examination of defendant\u2019s character witness was improper; and that certain comments of the prosecutor during closing argument constituted reversible error. Because of the nature of the issues presented, only a brief recitation of the facts is necessary.\nOn February 6, 1976, at 1 p.m., Robert Jones was walking from his home at 3417 West Madison Street in Chicago to a service station located at Warren Boulevard and Homan Avenue. Jones, 17 years old, was getting cigarettes for his grandfather. As Jones approached the service station, about a block from his home, he was pulled into a gangway between houses and robbed at knifepoint by defendant. Defendant took his money and stabbed Jones in the left hand. Jones gave the police officers a description of his robber and also informed them that he had seen the robber at a nearby high school and at stores in the neighborhood. Defendant was arrested after Jones identified his photograph at the police station.\nDefendant initially contends that there was a fatal variance between the bill of particulars and the evidence adduced by the State. Jones testified at trial that the attack occurred on Homan Avenue within 45 feet from the comer of Homan and Warren Boulevard. Prior to trial, the State in answer to a discovery motion had filed a bill of particulars which stated that the offense took place in the vicinity of 3343 West Warren, around the comer from the actual location of the attack.\nThe function of a bill of particulars is to permit the defendant to prepare his defense. (People v. Dorsey (1936), 363 Ill. 403, 2 N.E.2d 31.) It also limits the evidence which may be introduced by the prosecution. (People v. Walton (1969), 118 Ill. App. 2d 324, 254 N.E.2d 190.) A variance between the bill of particulars and the evidence is fatal where the inconsistency is so substantial that it misleads the defendant in the preparation of his defense. People v. Nickson (1978), 58 Ill. App. 3d 470, 374 N.E.2d 804.\nIn the present case, the crime did occur within the immediate vicinity of the address given in the bill of particulars. There is no showing that defendant suffered any prejudice from this minor variance, nor was defendant misled in the preparation of his defense. Moreover, since the address was not essential to the crimes in question, the variance between the bill of particulars and the proof was harmless; the variance was not fatal. See People v. Jones (1973), 12 Ill. App. 3d 643, 299 N.E.2d 77.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in permitting Jones to testify that he identified defendant from a book of photographs at the police station. Defendant maintains that such testimony prejudiced him because it constituted evidence of other crimes and conveyed the impression that he had a long criminal record. We do not agree.\nThe practice of showing photographs of suspects to witnesses is essential to effective law enforcement (People v. Brown (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 94, 285 N.E.2d 1), and the use of police photographs for identification purposes has long been upheld. (People v. Maffioli (1950), 406 Ill. 315, 94 N.E.2d 191.) In the present case, the police photographs were not received in evidence and were never described as \u201cmug shots\u201d within the hearing of the jury. The jury did not examine the photographs or the album containing defendant\u2019s photograph. Defendant was not prejudiced by the testimony concerning the photographic identification nor does it appear that the jury improperly considered defendant\u2019s past criminal record. The testimony regarding the photographic identification did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.\nDefendant also contends that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined defendant\u2019s character witness by focusing on specific acts of defendant. The reputation of a person cannot be impeached by particular acts of misconduct. (People v. Greeley (1958), 14 Ill. 2d 428, 152 N.E.2d 825.) Nevertheless, character witnesses must be shown to have adequate knowledge of the defendant and his reputation. People v. Moretti (1955), 6 Ill. 2d 494, 129 N.E.2d 709.\nIn the instant case, the character witness testified concerning defendant\u2019s reputation at church functions. On cross-examination, he was asked whether defendant was employed or going to school. The prosecutor did not inquire into specific acts of misconduct on the part of defendant. We believe the questions concerning defendant\u2019s employment and education were proper. In any event, the questions could not be considered prejudicial.\nDefendant finally argues that the comment of the prosecutor during closing argument in referring to the uncontradicted nature of the State\u2019s case was prejudicial. Defendant urges that the remarks constituted an impermissible comment on defendant\u2019s failure to testify and his right to remain silent.\nThe correct standard in deciding whether the prosecutor\u2019s comment violated defendant\u2019s right to remain silent is to ascertain if the reference was calculated to direct the jury\u2019s attention to defendant\u2019s failure to testify. (People v. Cruz (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 21, 347 N.E.2d 227.) It is permissible for a prosecutor to comment on the uncontradicted nature of the State\u2019s case even where the only person who could have contradicted the State\u2019s evidence was defendant himself. People v. Mills (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 4, 237 N.E.2d 697.\nHere, the prosecutor in his summation emphasized only the character of the State\u2019s case, and his comments about the uncontradicted character of the State\u2019s evidence do not appear to have been intended to direct the jury\u2019s intention to defendant\u2019s failure to testify. Moreover, the trial judge directed the jury to disregard the remarks concerning the uncontradicted nature of the State\u2019s case. No prejudice resulted to defendant as a result of the comments.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nJIGANTI, P. J., and McGILLICUDDY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McNAMARA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph Ruebner and Patricia Unsinn, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger and James S. Veldman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY LONG, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 77-1681\nOpinion filed September 27, 1978.\nRehearing denied November 1, 1978.\nRalph Ruebner and Patricia Unsinn, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger and James S. Veldman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0021-01",
  "first_page_order": 43,
  "last_page_order": 47
}