{
  "id": 2848006,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman James Lamkin, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Lamkin",
  "decision_date": "1972-12-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 72-8",
  "first_page": "771",
  "last_page": "772",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 Ill. App. 3d 771"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "287 N.E.2d 479",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N.E.2d 800",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill.2d 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5362980
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/28/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.E.2d 734",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ill.App.3d 699",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 N.E.2d 80",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill.2d 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2742008
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/19/0050-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 249,
    "char_count": 3116,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.745,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4793276177203605e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2806526558112075
    },
    "sha256": "6b7941a38cf9275cdea3a605129e8fd8909ccc7e607cbd1e44a1b7f82b4c4142",
    "simhash": "1:aec4a1bbec3ef0b0",
    "word_count": 533
  },
  "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. Norman James Lamkin, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE CREBS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant was found guilty by a jury of the crime of conspiracy (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 38, par. 8 \u2014 2), in the Circuit Court of Wabash County. We reverse.\nThe factual situation is simple. On June 27, 1971, one Donald Holloman was arrested and charged with burglary. He had been found by the police in a physician\u2019s office at 1:30 A.M. Two hours later the police stopped an automobile driven by Holloman\u2019s wife in which defendant was a passenger. The car was stopped near the office where Holloman was arrested and the automobile was traveling slowly. Defendant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit burglary.\nThe defendant offered no evidence at trial. The only evidence implicating the defendant in the burglary was the testimony of one of the arresting officers. The officer testified that Mrs. Holloman told him at the time she was arrested that she had dropped off her \u201cboyfriend\u201d and that \u201cthey\u201d had come back to pick him up. Nothing else in the record in any way implicates the defendant in the burglary. At the close of the prosecutions case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict and his motion was denied.\nThe trial court should have directed the verdict in favor of the defendant. It is not for defendant to establish his innocence, but for the People to establish his guilt. (People v. Benson, 19 Ill.2d 50, 166 N.E.2d 80.) Also, if a review of the record leaves the appellate court with a grave and substantial doubt of the defendant\u2019s guilt, it is our duty to reverse his conviction. (People v. Bush, 4 Ill.App.3d 699, 281 N.E.2d 734.) We cannot say that no reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt remains and on such a record the conviction cannot stand. People v. Butler, 28 Ill.2d 88, 190 N.E.2d 800.\nThe defendant also maintains that the trial court erred in suggesting that the defendant take a lie-detector test in the course of a hearing on the motion for probation and the hearing in aggravation and mitigation. The same point was raised in People v. McVet, 287 N.E.2d 479. The court in that case said: \u201cIt is obvious that the trial judge wished to use the polygraph as a truth determining device, that he conditioned probation upon the taking of the test, and that he deferred his decision on sentencing until that evidence was available.\n\u201cIt was error for the court to request defendant to submit himself to the test and impermissible for the court to rely upon the polygraph evidence in reaching its decision in sentencing.\u201d We agree with the holding in McVet.\nThe defendant has raised other points in his appeal but since we have held that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction, we need not reach the other issues.\nThe decision of the Circuit Court of Wabash County is reversed and defendant is discharged.\nReversed.\nG. MORAN, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE CREBS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Linda West Conley, of Defender Project, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "No appearance for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman James Lamkin, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 72-8;\nFifth District\nDecember 20, 1972.\nLinda West Conley, of Defender Project, of Chicago, for appellant.\nNo appearance for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0771-01",
  "first_page_order": 793,
  "last_page_order": 794
}