{
  "id": 2759372,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alice L. Schmidt, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Schmidt",
  "decision_date": "1972-12-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 72-161",
  "first_page": "1024",
  "last_page": "1026",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 Ill. App. 3d 1024"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "129 Ill.App.2d 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2742304
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "246"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/129/0244-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3671,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.768,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.333493452170769e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6295206786187149
    },
    "sha256": "a381592e5b46b57bd9b152a8626e495cfacbfbc5ccc8e53b3e4ecc7ee6496397",
    "simhash": "1:ae49cdef6e83deee",
    "word_count": 583
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:39:49.359959+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alice L. Schmidt, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant was arrested for the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of Section 11 \u2014 501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 95%, par. 11 \u2014 501.) During the arrest procedures the arresting officer gave defendant a breathalyzer test, completed the alcoholic influence (visual) report and a police department form captioned \u201cDWI Arrest Report\u201d consisting of six pages of questions, which the police furnished to the State\u2019s Attorney. On defendant\u2019s discovery motion the State furnished copies of the alcoholic influence report, the breathalyzer test and a list of witnesses.\nAt a hearing on defendant\u2019s discovery motion demanding production of the DWI Arrest Report, the trial court examined that report in camera and thereafter entered an order granting defendant\u2019s motion for discovery and requiring production of the DWI Arrest Report. When the State refused to produce it, the trial court, referring to that report as a supplemental alcoholic influence report, entered an order excluding from use at the trial all matters contained in the DWI Arrest Report. The State appeals from that order.\nSupreme Court Rule 604 (a) (1) provides in pertinent part as follows:\n\u201c(1) * * * In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in * * * suppressing evidence.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110A, par. 604 (a) (1).\nThere can be no question that the substantive effect of the order appealed from suppressed the evidence included in the DWI Arrest Report. Defendant\u2019s argument therefore that she has been denied the right to a speedy trial by reason of this appeal is without merit. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 110A, par. 604 (a) (3); People v. Courtright, 129 Ill.App.2d 244, 246.) Under the Illinois Vehicle Code defendant is entitled to full information as to the chemical or other tests to which she submitted. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 95%, par. 11 \u2014 501.) That information was furnished to her by the State.\nThe State concedes that the \u201cArrest Report\u201d is available to defendant at the trial for impeachment pmposes upon cross-examination of witnesses. It contends, however, that, the charge here being a misdemeanor, defendant is not entitled to pre-trial discovery of that written report. Supreme Court Rule 411 of the revised rules as to discovery in criminal cases, effective October 1, 1971, provides:\n\u201cThese rules shall be applied in all criminal cases wherein the accused is charged with the offense for which, upon conviction, he might be imprisoned in the penitentiary.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 110A, par. 411.\nThe Committee Comment stated it rejected the ABA standard which called for application of discovery rules \u201cto all serious criminal cases\u201d. Thus, even the ABA standard would have limited the application of the discovery rules even more than is done by the Illinois rule. The offense with which defendant is charged does not carry with it the possibility of imprisonment in the penitentiary.\nThe trial court erred in entering the order, the substantive effect of which was suppressing the evidence included in the Arrest Report to the State\u2019s Attorney. The judgment is reversed and remanded.\nReversed and remanded.\nGUILD and WOODWARD, JJ\u201e concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William V. Hopf, State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton, (Malcolm F. Smith, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People.",
      "Marco & Mannina, of Downers Grove, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alice L. Schmidt, Defendant-Appellee.\n(No. 72-161;\nSecond District \u2014\nDecember 27, 1972.\nWilliam V. Hopf, State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton, (Malcolm F. Smith, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People.\nMarco & Mannina, of Downers Grove, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1024-01",
  "first_page_order": 1046,
  "last_page_order": 1048
}