{
  "id": 2845340,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Moore, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1972-12-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 56385",
  "first_page": "231",
  "last_page": "233",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 Ill. App. 3d 231"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "221 N.E.2d 63",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ill.App.2d 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2579991
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/74/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N.E.2d 529",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ill.2d 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2738166
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/20/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.E.2d 68",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ill.App.2d 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2580672
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/74/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.E.2d 485",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ill.App. 2d 101",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2821284
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/100/0101-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N.E.2d 821",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill.App.2d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2598036
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/57/0221-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N.E.2d 803",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill.App.2d 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5174405
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/14/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N.E. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 Ill. 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5156272
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/319/0359-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N.E.2d 890",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "366 Ill. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2579900
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/366/0195-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N.E. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 Ill. 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4890968
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "42"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/280/0032-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 4488,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.737,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.13220549340591e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5761067537142127
    },
    "sha256": "1bcefd0f3036e0d43c4c6110c3c949170addf85c24447996a0c5506154887da0",
    "simhash": "1:048315b996fbefec",
    "word_count": 763
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:41:33.026395+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. James Moore, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LEIGHTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant and Silas Hart were charged with the murder of Walter May. Defendant alone was tried by a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to serve 30 to 60 years. In this appeal, the only issue is whether the final argument of the assistant State\u2019s Attorney contained comments that prejudiced defendant\u2019s right to a fair and impartial trial.\nThe comments were made when, in closing the prosecution\u2019s case, the assistant State\u2019s Attorney argued:\n\u201cMr. Moore [referring to the defendant] said, among other things, and most essentially that he went home at about somewhere 11:30 the night of April 6, 1969, after being high and went to bed. Who did he live there with? Sister, mother, father, nieces and nephews. Did you hear, ladies and gentlemen, any corroboration for his alibi? Anybody willing beside himself to say yes \u2014 his own sister, perhaps \u2014 to say, \u201cYes, he did come in! I saw him.' Totally unsupported, his story by even members of his own family. Even his own family didn\u2019t come in here and under oath say that he was with them.\u201d\nThe record shows defendant had testified that on the evening of April 6, 1969, when the alleged murder was committed, he and Silas Hart were in Walter May\u2019s automobile. They purchased and consumed a pint of wine. After riding around for half an hour or so, Hart said to May, \u201cMan, you\u2019d better take us home.\u201d Defendant testified that \u201cThey took me to my mother\u2019s house.\u201d Then, according to defendant, he was helped into the house and without taking off his clothes, went to bed. Hart and May drove off.\nDefendant\u2019s testimony, the State argues, asserted an alibi. He did not call any member of his family to corroborate him. Therefore, the State insists, the argument of the assistant State\u2019s Attorney was proper because defendant\u2019s failure to support his alibi was a subject on which the State could comment.\nIt is a general rule of the criminal law that a defendant has no duty to call anyone as a witness in his case. It is his privilege to produce witnesses and to make a defense or not, as he chooses. (People v. Munday, 280 Ill. 32, 42, 117 N.E. 286.) Argument to a jury that comments on the failure of a defendant to call witnesses on his behalf is prejudicial. People v. Rubin, 366 Ill. 195, 7 N.E.2d 890.\nThere is a recognized exception to this general rule. When a defendant injects into the case his activities with potential witnesses during a particular period of time ostensibly for the purpose of establishing an alibi, his failure to produce such witnesses is a proper subject of comment on the part of the State. People v. Swift, 319 Ill. 359, 150 N.E. 263; People v. Lenihan, 14 Ill.App.2d 490, 144 N.E.2d 803; People v. Gray, 57 Ill.App.2d 221, 206 N.E.2d 821; People v. Sanford, 100 Ill.App. 2d 101, 241 N.E.2d 485.\nThe record before us, however, discloses that defendant did not inject into the case his activities with potential witnesses in the endeavor to establish an alibi. He testified that Hart and May, on the evening of the aUeged murder, drove him to his mother\u2019s home, helped him into the house and drove away. Defendant did not inject his sister, mother, father, nieces or nephews as persons who were with him or saw him. There is nothing in the record to suggest that these persons, if in fact they existed, were not accessible to the prosecution. Therefore, the comments of the assistant State\u2019s Attorney in his closing argument for the State were unjustified and constituted prejudicial argument. People v. Smith, 74 Ill.App.2d 458, 221 N.E.2d 68.\nWe have examined the entire record and conclude that on the evidence in this case, the final argument of the assistant State\u2019s Attorney was prejudicial error that requires us to reverse and remand this conviction, even though no objection was raised at the trial. (People v. Morgan, 20 Ill.2d 437, 170 N.E.2d 529; People v. Davis, 74 Ill.App.2d 450, 221 N.E.2d 63.) Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nSCHWARTZ and HAYES, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LEIGHTON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Mary Cahill and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, (Elmer C. Kissane and James N. Karahalios, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Moore, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 56385;\nFirst District\nDecember 5, 1972.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Mary Cahill and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, (Elmer C. Kissane and James N. Karahalios, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0231-01",
  "first_page_order": 253,
  "last_page_order": 255
}