{ "id": 3202327, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TROY V. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Martin", "decision_date": "1980-05-12", "docket_number": "No. 78-1755", "first_page": "822", "last_page": "827", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 822" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "340 N.E.2d 53", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2960775 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/34/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Ill. App. 3d 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5575045 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/70/0496-01" ] }, { "cite": "342 N.E.2d 795", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Ill. App. 3d 799", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5306717 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/35/0799-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 N.E.2d 145", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2853046 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/41/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 N.E.2d 1256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 Ill. App. 3d 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2815152 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/44/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "390 N.E.2d 131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "71 Ill. App. 3d 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5580121 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/71/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "308 N.E.2d 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5404559 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0361-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 607, "char_count": 12990, "ocr_confidence": 0.915, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.715080785576398e-08, "percentile": 0.4077681749013166 }, "sha256": "7222cc57e0fe475d6751400e7359121c65e8fb643b6f218fba8ec3ec43c3bbc2", "simhash": "1:91601ad05df861d3", "word_count": 2189 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:38.181565+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. TROY V. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Troy V. Martin, was charged by way of an information with murder, attempt murder and aggravated battery. After a jury trial, he was convicted of murder and aggravated battery, but was acquitted of attempt murder. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 25 to 50 years for murder and 3 to 10 years for aggravated battery. A previous trial of this cause had ended in a mistrial because of a hung jury.\nDefendant appeals, contending that (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the jury\u2019s request, after deliberations had begun, for the transcript of the testimony of Eric Williams, a witness at the previous trial, and (2) the stipulation explaining Williams\u2019 unavailability to the jury denied defendant a fair trial.\nRichard Schneider testified that at about 12:20 a.m. on November 14, 1976, he was in his car stopped at a red light at the intersection of LaVergne and Jackson Streets when a young man stumbled to his car and fell across the hood. Schneider helped the man into the car and, after noticing blood on the front of the man\u2019s coat, drove him to Loretto Hospital. Schneider identified two photographs of Charles McGee, the deceased, as the man he had driven to the hospital.\nBeatrice Davis testified that she was the mother of 15-year-old Charles McGee, and that in November of 1976 she lived at 4833 West Adams with her husband, her children and 17-year-old Eric Williams. About 10:35 p.m. on November 13, 1976, her son Charles and Eric left their home to collect $2 a woman owed Eric. Charles was wearing a brown hat, which Davis identified. Shortly after midnight Eric returned home crying. After talking to Eric, Davis went to Quincy and LaVergne Streets, where a police officer told her that her son was at Loretto Hospital. When Davis arrived at the hospital, she was told that Charles was dead. She subsequently identified her son\u2019s body at the Cook County Morgue on November 15, 1976.\nThe prosecution and defense counsel stipulated that Eric Williams died on April 19,1977, \u201cas a result of a bullet fired from a gun\u201d and that at the time he was shot Eric \u201cwas not in violation of any city, state or local law.\u201d The trial judge informed the jury that before his death Eric had testified at a prior proceeding and explained that a transcript of his testimony would be read to them by having the prosecution ask the questions which had been asked of Eric on direct examination and having Eric\u2019s responses read by an assistant State\u2019s attorney who was not involved in these proceedings. The testimony so read was edited so as not to contain any objections or rulings made by the trial court at the previous trial.\nIn the transcript of Eric\u2019s prior testimony, which was stipulated to be true and accurate, he testified that on November 13, 1976, he lived with Beatrice Davis and her family, including Charles McGee. Eric and Charles were at home from 2:30 p.m. until about 10:45 p.m., at which time they left their house and walked to 4949 West Quincy to collect $2 owed Eric from a Miss Cook. As they returned to the front of their house, defendant, John Linzie, Michael Sims and a man Eric knew only as Tim arrived in a car driven by Tim. Defendant, John Linzie and Michael Sims got out of the car and Tim drove away. Defendant said that he had been told by Frankie Howard that Eric and Charles had burglarized defendant\u2019s house. Eric and Charles denied this and agreed to defendant\u2019s suggestion that they all walk over to Howard\u2019s home to straighten out the matter. On their way, they passed defendant\u2019s home. Defendant suggested that they all go upstairs to examine the broken lock on the door of defendant\u2019s third-floor apartment. Once upstairs, Eric observed that defendant\u2019s front door lock was broken. He and Charles stepped inside the apartment and stood in the front room. Charles stood beside Linzie and Sims near the kitchen doorway, while Eric stood in the middle of the living room. Defendant\u2019s wife, Jennifer Martin, was also present. Defendant went into the kitchen and returned with a long silver knife. Defendant ran toward Eric trying to stab him in the chest, and, after a scuffle, defendant stabbed Eric in the back. As Eric got up to run out the front door, he saw defendant stab Charles in the chest several times. Eric ran home and spoke with Davis, who called the police. Eric returned to defendant\u2019s apartment with two police officers, but found only John Linzie and Jennifer Martin. He then proceeded to Loretto Hospital, where he identified Charles\u2019 body and had his own wound treated. Eric denied that he or Charles had burglarized defendant\u2019s apartment. Eric identified defendant as well as photographs of defendant\u2019s living room and Charles\u2019 body. He also identified the brown hat worn by Charles at the time Charles was stabbed. On cross-examination, Eric disclosed that in 1975 he had pleaded guilty to robbery.\nJohn Linzie testified for the defense that he was 19 years of age, that he had been a friend of defendant 7 or 8 years and that he was a cousin of defendant\u2019s wife. On November 13, 1976, he was with defendant and Michael Sims in a car driven by another young man when they spotted Charles McGee and Eric Williams walking down the street. Defendant asked Eric why he had broken into defendant\u2019s apartment. After Eric denied the accusation, the group started walking to Frankie Howard\u2019s house to confirm Frankie\u2019s allegation that Eric and Charles were the burglars. On the way, the group stopped at defendant\u2019s house, where Eric and defendant started arguing and subsequently fighting and wrestling until Eric ran out of the apartment. Linzie testified further that Charles suggested they go to Frankie\u2019s house and Charles, defendant, Sims and Linzie all started walking down the stairwell. However, Linzie returned to the apartment when the defendant ordered him to stay with defendant\u2019s wife. Linzie testified that he never saw a knife in defendant\u2019s hands and never saw defendant stab Charles McGee. Linzie admitted giving the police a signed statement, but denied that he told the police that he had seen defendant stab both Eric and Charles.\nJennifer Martin testified that she was the 19-year-old wife of defendant, and that on November 13, 1976, she lived with him at 244 South LaVergne. She and defendant arrived home at about 10 p.m., to find their front door open. As they entered their apartment, they heard the back door slam. After discovering that a blanket, a stereo set and speakers were missing, the defendant left the apartment. He returned later with John Linzie, Michael Sims, Charles McGee and Eric Williams. Eric and defendant argued over who had taken defendant\u2019s stereo and they eventually began wrestling until Eric jumped up and ran from the apartment. Defendant then asked Charles who had his stereo. Defendant\u2019s wife testified that Charles suggested they go to Frankie\u2019s house and the group left the apartment, but that John Linzie returned to stay with her. Jennifer Martin testified that at no time did she see her husband with a knife in his hands.\nInvestigator Michael Miller of the Chicago Police Department testified on rebuttal that on November 14, 1976, he interviewed John Linzie in the police station at about 4:45 a.m. Linzie signed a typed statement in which he stated that he saw defendant stab both Eric and Charles and then throw the knife in the garbage because it had broken.\nDuring deliberations, the jury requested a copy of the transcript of Eric Williams\u2019 testimony, the signed statement of John Linzie and another photograph of decedent. The trial judge denied the jury\u2019s request for John Linzie\u2019s statement, but allowed them to receive the photograph as well as the copy of Eric Williams\u2019 testimony taken at the first trial.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of the murder of Charles McGee, guilty of aggravated battery of Eric Williams and not guilty of attempt murder of Eric Williams. Defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial was denied. Following a hearing in aggravation and mitigation, defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 25 to 50 years for murder and 3 to 10 years for aggravated battery.\nDefendant first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the jury\u2019s request for the transcript of the testimony of Eric Williams after deliberations had begun. We find defendant\u2019s contention is without merit.\nIt is within the discretion of the trial court to allow or refuse a jury\u2019s request for the review of testimony. (People v. Pierce (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 361, 308 N.E.2d 577.) The existence of this discretionary power imposes a duty on the trial court to determine whether a review of the requested testimony would be helpful or harmful to the jury\u2019s proper deliberations. (People v. McClellan (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 611,390 N.E.2d 131; People v. Bell (1976), 44 Ill. App. 3d 185, 357 N.E.2d 1256.) Because it is the jury itself requesting to review the testimony, the trial court must start with the assumption that the jury feels that such a review would be helpful. (People v. McClellan; People v. Bell.) The court must then determine if there is a possible basis for the jury\u2019s belief that a review of the testimony would be beneficial and what harm the proposed review might have on the jury\u2019s deliberations. People v. McClellan; People v. Bell.\nIn the case at bar, a review of Williams\u2019 testimony could aid the jury in determining the credibility and weight to be given his account of the incident. Because Williams was unavailable to testify and the jury was thus unable to view his demeanor, it is apparent that the jury would benefit from a review of that testimony and that the risk of harm would be minuscule, if it existed at all. It cannot be said that any portion of the testimony was given undue emphasis because the jury was provided with the entire transcript of Williams\u2019 testimony, including direct as well as cross-examination.\nWe find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to review the transcript of Williams\u2019 testimony during its deliberations.\nDefendant\u2019s second contention is that he was denied a fair trial because the unavailability of Williams was explained to the jury by informing them that Williams died \u201cas a result of a bullet fired from a gun,\u201d and that at the time of his death Williams \u201cwas not in violation of any city, state or local law.\u201d Defendant contends that such evidence prejudiced defendant in that it may have created the unwarranted inference that defendant killed Williams because Williams had previously testified against defendant. We find that defendant was not prejudiced.\nThe hearsay rule does not bar admission of prior recorded testimony from a former trial of the same action when the witness is unavailable because he or she has died and was subject to cross-examination at the prior proceeding. (People v. Jackson (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 102, 242 N.E.2d 145; People v. Hoover (1976), 35 Ill. App. 3d 799,342 N.E.2d 795; see also People v. Knippenberg (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 496, 388 N.E.2d-806.) The prosecutor and defense counsel entered into a stipulation which explained Williams\u2019 unavailability to the jury. The portion of the stipulation stating that Williams had died \u201cas a result of a bullet fired from a gun\u201d was the exact language which appeared on Williams\u2019 death certificate. In addition, the record shows that defendant was in jail when Williams was killed and the State introduced no evidence which in any way inferred that defendant was responsible for Williams\u2019 death. Moreover, the court allowed the stipulation to refer to the fact that Williams had not been in violation of the law at the time of his death. This was necessary because a prior conviction of Williams had been introduced at the first trial during Williams\u2019 testimony and the trial judge wanted to prevent any implication that Williams may have been killed while committing a crime. Further, even if we assume that error was committed regarding the proof of Williams\u2019 unavailability, such error was at worst harmless. See People v. Howard (1975), 34 Ill. App. 3d 145, 340 N.E.2d 53, and People v. Hoover (1976), 35 Ill. App. 3d 799, 342 N.E.2d 795.\nWe find that the stipulated explanation of Williams\u2019 death was proper proof of Williams\u2019 unavailability as a witness and that defendant suffered no prejudice because of the explanation.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMcGLOON and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ralph Ruebner and Rafael Schwimmer, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Mary Ellen Dienes, and Richard F. Burke, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TROY V. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 78-1755\nOpinion filed May 12, 1980.\nRalph Ruebner and Rafael Schwimmer, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Mary Ellen Dienes, and Richard F. Burke, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0822-01", "first_page_order": 844, "last_page_order": 849 }