Court Opinion

ID: 9884432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:56:32.957697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:38.431835
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Underwood, dissenting: I cannot agree that reversal of this conviction is necessary under the circumstances here. Defendant was arrested not far from, and very shortly after, the shooting as a result of the description given the officers by persons at the scene. The gun with which decedent was killed was found nearby, and a receipt for that gun, together with additional shells, were found on defendant’s person. It is clear that he was informed of his constitutional rights before any statement was made. It is, however, considerably less than clear that his statement was made in response to questions as stated in the majority opinion. Both arresting officers, Officer Urban on cross-examination when he said: “No, I didn’t. I didn’t talk to him at all. He started the conversation by that [the questioned statement] ”, and Officer Ryan who testified: “I told him his rights [prior to the statement], that was all”, denied the statement was in response to a question, although Officer Urban’s direct testimony is susceptible of a contrary interpretation. In addition to the question whether defendant’s statement was volunteered (see People v. Bey, 45 Ill.2d 535), the trial judge was not, in my judgment, necessarily ruling against the manifest weight of the evidence in holding the statement admissible even though defendant was, to some extent, under the influence of liquor. It is apparent that defendant understood what he was suspected of, for both officers testified he denied the shooting. Also, Officer Urban testified: “I didn’t have any trouble in understanding him.” It seems to me the trial judge’s denial of the motion to suppress the statement necessarily indicates an affirmative resolution of the question of defendant’s ability to understand the officers or whether the statement was volunteered. I would interfere on neither ground in the circumstances here and would affirm the judgment.