People v. Davis

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Reese

    317 N.E.2d 711 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)

    As the defendant fled, Hernandez still did not observe anything in his hands. It was not until the defendant and Keto began to struggle that Hernandez observed the gun in his hand but he did not know where it came from. Keto testified that the first time he saw the weapon was when he was struggling to get the defendant's hands behind his back. It is a reasonable inference that the weapon had been concealed before the officers first saw it. (See People v. Gokey, 57 Ill.2d 433, 436, 312 N.E.2d 637; People v. Davis, 3 Ill. App.3d 56, 278 N.E.2d 200.) In both cases cited by the defendant, People v. Crachy, 131 Ill. App.2d 402, 268 N.E.2d 467, and People v. Gant, 84 Ill. App.2d 208, 228 N.E.2d 582, convictions for unlawful use of weapons were reversed because the weapons were visible and clearly identifiable as such from the first moment the officers observed the defendants.

  2. People v. Kent

    15 Ill. App. 3d 523 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)   Cited 11 times
    In People v. Kent (1st Dist. 1973), 15 Ill. App.3d 523, 305 N.E.2d 42, the defendant was tried for possession of a sawed-off shotgun.

    The evidence was more than sufficient to convict. ( People v. Davis (1971), 3 Ill. App.3d 56, 278 N.E.2d 200; People v. Zazzetti (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 858, 286 N.E.2d 745.) It is well settled that the effect of discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses is a matter to be considered by the trier of fact. ( People v. West (1971), 3 Ill. App.3d 106, 278 N.E.2d 233.) Here, the inconsistencies were vigorously argued to the jury and the defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.