People v. Hardy

6 Citing cases

  1. Norman v. State

    197 Ga. App. 333 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 60 times

    "If counsel desires to preserve an objection upon a specific point for appeal, the objection must be made at trial upon that specific ground." Ray v. State, 187 Ga. App. 451, 452 ( 370 S.E.2d 629); compare Mundy v. State, 259 Ga. 634 (5) ( 385 S.E.2d 666). An objection on a specific ground at trial waives any objection to that evidence on other grounds on appeal. People v. Hardy, 395 N.E.2d 743 (5) (A.C. Ill.) Moreover, "the court properly permitted these exhibits to go to the jury room in the absence of a proper objection." Sanders v. State, 246 Ga. 42 (2) ( 268 S.E.2d 628).

  2. Whatley v. State

    395 S.E.2d 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 21 times

    Thus, an inventory has been upheld where the police, in accordance with standard police procedure, conducted an inventory under the hood of the parked vehicle to see if the battery was present. People v. Hardy, 395 N.E.2d 743 (A.C. Ill.) Suffice it to say that numerous legitimate reasons might exist to extend the scope of an inventory under the hood. Generally, it is reasonable to obtain motor and hidden identification numbers in order to assist or enable the police to retrieve the car in the event it should be stolen while in their custody, or to inventory any customized equipment or alarm systems that might be present and subject to vandalism while the vehicle is in impoundment.

  3. People v. McCue

    530 N.E.2d 271 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)   Cited 4 times
    In People v. McCue, 175 Ill. App. 3d 762, 765-66, 530 N.E.2d 271, 273 (1988), the Third District followed Hyche and concluded that since the defendants failed to object to being handcuffed, they waived any alleged error that occurred by them being handcuffed throughout their trial.

    The defense failed to object to the defendants being handcuffed; therefore, they waived any alleged error concerning this matter ( Peoplev. Hyche (1979), 77 Ill.2d 229, 396 N.E.2d 6.) The failure to object waives any error and an objection on specific grounds waives any objection on other grounds. People v. Hardy (1979), 77 Ill. App.3d 37, 395 N.E.2d 743. • 3 Alternatively, the defendants were not denied a fair trial by being restrained throughout their trial in handcuffs.

  4. People v. Williams

    137 Ill. App. 3d 736 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)   Cited 25 times

    Since the objection by defense counsel was sustained, the remark was stricken from the record, and the jury was instructed to disregard the comment, we find no error resulted. People v. Hardy (1979), 77 Ill. App.3d 37, 395 N.E.2d 743. Finally, defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was unreliable and raised a serious doubt of guilt. It is well established that it is the function of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

  5. State v. Williams

    654 S.W.2d 238 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 11 times

    The cases are collected in Prober. An inventory search under the floormat was approved in United States v. Edwards, 577 F.2d 883 (5th Cir. 1978); under the hood in People v. Hardy, 77 Ill.App.3d 37, 32 Ill.Dec. 513, 395 N.E.2d 743 (1979); in a trunk, State v. Roberge, 642 S.W.2d 716 (Tenn. 1982). State v. Peterson, 583 S.W.2d 277 (Mo.App. 1979) condemns an inventory search because of improper seizure and impoundment of a properly parked automobile.

  6. People v. Vincent

    92 Ill. App. 3d 446 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)   Cited 10 times
    In Vincent, the court found that the defendant was involved in a drug conspiracy by, inter alia, his coconspirator's reference to him as his "guy" and "Sonny."

    " The defense claims that Casteel's testimony provided the only direct link between Vincent, Vaisvilas and the drugs and because defense counsel was prohibited from fully commenting on the evidence and "denied the opportunity to express an opinion about the credibility of Agent Casteel, the defendants were deprived of a fair trial and the convictions should be reversed and remanded for a new trial" citing People v. Gray (1964), 52 Ill. App.2d 177, 201 N.E.2d 756, rev'd on other grounds (1965), 33 Ill.2d 160, 210 N.E.2d 486; People v. Carr (1969), 114 Ill. App.2d 370, 252 N.E.2d 912. • 5 The State claims that defense counsel was expressing his personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness in calling Casteel a liar ( People v. Hardy (1979), 77 Ill. App.3d 37, 395 N.E.2d 743), and that the trial court was clearly correct when he sustained objections to defense counsel's argument. It is improper for counsel to state that a witness or defendant had lied in his testimony unless he states, or it is apparent, that that statement is based solely upon the evidence. ( People v. Weathers (1975), 62 Ill.2d 114, 338 N.E.2d 880; People v. Hoffman (1948), 399 Ill. 57, 64-65, 77 N.E.2d 195; People v. Valdery (1978), 65 Ill. App.3d 375, 379, 381 N.E.2d 1217; People v. Gray; People v. Carr.)