Court Opinion

ID: 9520339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:36:59.478912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:01.236773
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING Mr. JUSTICE BURKE delivered the opinion of the court: On page 2 of the petition for rehearing the defendant has cited the following language of the trial court in support of his argument that the judge considered that he had no discretion to pass on the motion before the defendant testified: “Well, it’s too early for your motion now. * * * I will entertain your motion at that time after he takes the stand if he becomes a witness. * * * When I entertain your motion. I will consider ruling on it.” The other remarks of the trial court are highlighted on page 3 of the petition. It is significant that Judge Ryan said: “Well, it’s too early for your motion now.” The People v. Montgomery case discussed (page 518) the factors noted in United States v. Gordon that a trial court should consider in passing on the admissibility of a prior conviction. One of the factors is “the subsequent career of the person.” It is difficult to imagine how that could be brought to the attention of Judge Ryan except by testimony; and the best source of that testimony would be the defendant. Consequently, Judge Ryan’s remarks could be construed to mean that he could not intelligently exercise his discretion until he heard evidence touching on the subsequent career of the defendant and that it would come when and if the defendant took the stand. The requested rehearing is denied; certificate of importance is denied. Denied. EGAN, P. J., and HALLETT, J., concur.