People v. Payne

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Taylor

    163 Ill. App. 3d 346 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 4 times
    In Taylor, the witness had not previously identified the defendant and did not identify the defendant until immediately before he testified at trial when the assistant state's attorney showed him a single photograph of the defendant.

    That's over two years ago,right?That's correct.Ralph Herbst went into the police station andlooked at a line-up and told you he did not identifyanyone there.MOTION TO QUASH ARREST AND SUPPRESS EVIDENCEMapp v. Ohio, 357 U.S. 643 Thomas L. TaylorThomas L. Taylor30MarchHenry W. Lodawski,MOTION FOR A NEW TRIALDANIEL WOLFFUnited States v. Crews 445 U.S. 463 People v. Payne 102 Ill. App.3d 950 429 N.E.2d 1344 aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds 98 Ill.2d 45 456 N.E.2d 44 afterbeforePeople v. Philson 71 Ill. App.3d 513 389 N.E.2d 1223 Although the majority opinion correctly notes that there was no testimony that either witness identified defendant in a lineup, an examination of the excerpts from the record appended to that opinion leaves no doubt that they did. Investigator Schalk testified that defendant was charged with the pharmacy robberies after he was viewed in lineups held on January 14, 1983, the date of his arrest.

  2. People v. Payne

    98 Ill. 2d 45 (Ill. 1983)   Cited 110 times
    Resentencing unnecessary unless record indicates a vacated conviction had effect on the other sentences

    The appellate court affirmed except as to Bailey's armed-violence conviction, holding as to it that he had never been charged with that offense. ( 102 Ill. App.3d 950.) We allowed defendants' petition for leave to appeal.

  3. People v. Wilson

    260 Ill. App. 3d 364 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that unverified information from a person who was not an eyewitness only provided the police with a suspicion that the defendant committed the crime

    Defendant was identified in court by the victim and eyewitnesses, and the trial judge and jury acted within their province as respective fact finders when they assessed the credibility of the witnesses. (See People v. Payne (1981), 102 Ill. App.3d 950, 960, 429 N.E.2d 1344, 1352, aff'd in part rev'd in part (1983), 98 Ill.2d 45, 456 N.E.2d 44 ("[a] reviewing court cannot substitute its judgment of credibility for that of the trier of fact").) We cannot say how much weight the jury gave to defendant's inculpatory statement or whether, of course, he will be found guilty upon retrial absent that statement; we merely state that, on the record before us, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

  4. People v. Smith

    215 Ill. App. 3d 1029 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 13 times

    Second, the victim was an interested witness and, as such, she had reason to scrutinize the offender's face with some amount of care and attention. People v. Frisby, 160 Ill. App.3d at 33; People v. Payne (1981), 102 Ill. App.3d 950, 958, 429 N.E.2d 1344, aff'd in part rev'd in part (1983), 98 Ill.2d 45, 456 N.E.2d 44. As for the victim's description of the offender to the police, the testimony presented reveals that the victim did in fact describe her attacker to the police; however, the description itself was never elicited from her while she testified. It is impossible to tell from this record, therefore, whether the victim provided police with a description of the offender which was a relatively accurate portrayal of defendant.

  5. People v. Young

    115 Ill. App. 3d 455 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 37 times
    Finding that the defendant's act of grabbing the victim and throwing her against the wall was insufficient to sustain kidnapping as a prerequisite to aggravated kidnapping where the detention marked the beginning of the struggle culminating in rape, was only long enough to accomplish the rape, and was inherent in the rape itself because the victim had to be restrained to accomplish the rape

    With respect to Officer Mischikovski's testimony that he was told by a teacher that defendant was supposed to be in Mr. Jerdee's class during the first and second periods, we note that this testimony was elicited by defense counsel on re-cross-examination. The admission of this testimony therefore cannot be urged by defendant as error on appeal. ( People v. Lester (1981), 102 Ill. App.3d 761, 768, 430 N.E.2d 358; People v. Payne (1981), 102 Ill. App.3d 950, 959, 429 N.E.2d 1344.) Similarly, the officer's testimony regarding his conversation with Mr. Jerdee was brought out by defense counsel and, therefore, cannot be claimed as error. ( Lester; Payne.

  6. People v. Winfield

    113 Ill. App. 3d 818 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 80 times
    Distinguishing Kellas on similar grounds

    en has been met ( People v. McDonald (1976), 62 Ill.2d 448, 343 N.E.2d 489); therefore, a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on questions involving the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses ( People v. Dunklin (1982), 104 Ill. App.3d 685, 432 N.E.2d 1323) but will reverse only if the evidence is so improbable, impossible, or unsatisfactory as to raise a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt ( People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill.2d 564, 404 N.E.2d 233; People v. Hancock (1980), 83 Ill. App.3d 700, 404 N.E.2d 914). Moreover, we have repeatedly held that discrepancies or conflicts in testimony affect only the credibility of a witness and the weight to be given his testimony ( People v. Childs (1981), 95 Ill. App.3d 606, 420 N.E.2d 513), whether that conflict is between the testimony of two prosecution witnesses ( People v. Yarbrough (1977), 67 Ill.2d 222, 367 N.E.2d 666) or within the testimony of a single prosecution witness ( People v. Payne (1981), 102 Ill. App.3d 950, 429 N.E.2d 1344), and the effect of such discrepancies is therefore a matter for the trier of fact to weigh in reaching its determination ( People v. Hobson (1979), 77 Ill. App.3d 22, 396 N.E.2d 53), particularly where the inconsistencies are immaterial, since slight discrepancies do not render evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction ( People v. Kester (1979), 78 Ill. App.3d 902, 397 N.E.2d 888). Admittedly, there are some self-contradictions in the testimony of the two witnesses.