Opinion ID: 1848277
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relationship of deceased and appellant

Text: The closest the state came to directly showing that the appellant and the victim were ever together or even knew each other was through the testimony of McKinney's sister and girl friend. Both testified that they dropped McKinney off at a tavern in Chicago during the morning of September 9, 1967. It was established that the appellant was in the tavern at this time. Although no witness was produced who testified as to seeing the victim and appellant together, it could be inferred from the other testimony that they were together at the tavern. However, despite the thinness of the state's evidence of prior relationship of McKinney and the appellant, the circumstances surrounding the finding of McKinney's body on the Dombrowski farm and the many items of physical evidence tying in the 1960 Dodge and Thunderbird with the homicide, all point to the inevitable conclusion that Dombrowski murdered McKinney and left his body at the Dombrowski farm. Appellant raises two other legal issues concerning the conduct of his trial, each of which deserves comment here and neither of which presents error that would compel us to order a new trial. These issues are: Was the testimony of Attorney Schloemer violative of appellant's statutory right to have communications between attorney and client privileged from disclosure unless waived by the client? (III, infra ) Were the remarks made by the prosecuting attorney during closing argument so prejudicial as to require a mistrial? (IV, infra )