Title: The PEOPLE v. Heidman

State: illinois

Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court

Document:

38 Ill. 2d 466 (1967)
231 N.E.2d 457
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee,
v.
CATHERINE HEIDMAN, Appellant.
No. 40573.

Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed November 30, 1967.
*467 JULIUS LUCIUS ECHELES and JO-ANNE F. WOLFSON, both of Chicago, for appellant.
WILLIAM G. CLARK, Attorney General, of Springfield, and JOHN J. STAMOS, State's Attorney, of Chicago, (FRED G. LEACH, Assistant Attorney General, and ELMER C. KISSANE and JAMES B. ZAGEL, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. JUSTICE SCHAEFER delivered the opinion of the court:
The defendant, Catherine Heidman, was indicted for the offense of abortion. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, par. 23-1.) She was represented by counsel of her own choice, tried by the court without a jury, found guilty, and placed on probation for 3 years, the first 90 days to be served in the House of Correction. On this appeal she does not dispute that the evidence was sufficient to establish her guilt, but does contend that her constitutional rights were violated because the trial judge did not impanel a jury to determine *468 whether she was physically competent to stand trial, and because she did not understandingly and voluntarily waive a jury trial.
These contentions stem from the following colloquy that took place when her case was called for trial:
A trial judge is required to conduct a hearing when he has reason to believe that the defendant is unable, because of a physical or mental condition, to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him and to assist in his defense. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, par. 104-1, 104-2; see also People v. Sims, 34 Ill. 2d 206; People v. Wilson, 29 Ill. 2d 82; People v. Cleggett, 22 Ill. 2d 471; People v. Burson, 11 Ill. 2d 360.
On behalf of the defendant it is urged that the quoted colloquy raised sufficient doubt as to her physical condition to require the trial judge to conduct a hearing to determine her competence to stand trial and to waive a trial by jury. We do not agree. No one connected with the trial of the case seems to have felt any doubt as to the defendant's physical or mental competence. The trial judge and the defendant's attorney participated in the colloquy, and neither of them drew the inferences that the defendant's present attorneys seek to draw from what was then said by the defendant. There was no request for a continuance *470 nor was there any reference during the trial to the defendant's physical condition.
The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. JUSTICE WARD took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.