People v. Robinson

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Molsby

    66 Ill. App. 3d 647 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 30 times

    He merely provided information which led the law enforcement officials to Finley's apartment on February 2, 1972. • 2 The court in People v. Robinson (1969), 105 Ill. App.2d 57, 245 N.E.2d 137, considered the value of an informant's testimony under similar circumstances. In Robinson, a police informant had identified defendant as the person who had just sold him drugs.

  2. People v. Quinn

    276 N.E.2d 379 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 7 times
    In Quinn the defendant admitted to possession of narcotics during a pretrial suppression hearing but did not testify at trial.

    • 1, 2 We find no merit in defendant's first contention. Defendant was charged only with the unlawful possession of narcotics, an offense in which the informer in no way participated, and the informer was not present at the time of defendant's arrest or during the search of his person. Hence, it is clear that the identity and testimony of the informer was neither material nor required under the Roviaro case. ( McCray v. Illinois (1967), 386 U.S. 300; People v. Williams (1967), 38 Ill.2d 150; People v. Durr (1963), 28 Ill.2d 308; People v. Robinson (1969), 105 Ill. App.2d 57.) Thus, defendant's first theory in support of his initial contention is devoid of merit because it has no application to the instant case. Likewise, his second theory, which merely echoes the dissenting view of Mr. Justice Douglas in the McCray case, has no merit. It is well established that an informer's reliability may be determined without his presence in court or the disclosure of his identity.

  3. People v. Lee

    337 N.E.2d 381 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    In response to the question posed by the court, she indicated that she picked up a pop bottle, broke it on the ground and cut the defendant's hands. Although the defendant concedes that the testimony of one credible witness is sufficient to convict even though such testimony was contradicted by the accused ( People v. Gralewski, 132 Ill. App.2d 755, 757, 270 N.E.2d 566, 568; People v. Robinson, 105 Ill. App.2d 57, 67, 245 N.E.2d 137, 142), he insists that Miss Wyer was not a credible witness. Defendant contends that she blatantly lied on direct examination as to whether she had a weapon at any time during the alleged attack since she admitted, on rebuttal, to cutting the defendant's hands with a pop bottle.

  4. People v. Gant

    302 N.E.2d 376 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)   Cited 3 times
    In Gant, not only does it appear that police knew the defendant by name and had information as to his whereabouts and the color and type of car he was sitting in, but police acquired personal knowledge that defendant had possession of a controlled substance when defendant got out of the car and the officers saw red capsules which appeared to be barbiturates fall from defendant's hand.

    "* * * Here all of the information furnished by Ware, except possession of narcotics by defendant was personally verified by the officers before the arrest * * *." In People v. Robinson, 105 Ill. App.2d 57, 245 N.E.2d 137, a police informer told police officers that he had just purchased a bag of marijuana and pointed out the defendant as the seller. He was arrested and a search disclosed marijuana.

  5. People v. Hickman

    9 Ill. App. 3d 601 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)   Cited 6 times
    In People v. Hickman (1973), 9 Ill. App.3d 601, 291 N.E.2d 872, the court held that the State's failure to call a witness did not raise a negative inference because the absent witness' testimony would have been merely cumulative.

    The jury believed the officer's testimony on this point and we find no error in the failure to obtain a fingerprint analysis. People v. Robinson (1967), 105 Ill. App.2d 57, 245 N.E.2d 137; People v. Jones (1964), 30 Ill.2d 186, 196 N.E.2d 698. Defendant's arguments on the foregoing points, thus do not lead us to agree that the State failed to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

  6. People v. Gralewski

    132 Ill. App. 2d 755 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 4 times

    ( People v. Booher (1966), 73 Ill. App.2d 226.) It is also well settled that the testimony of one credible witness is sufficient to convict even though such testimony was contradicted by the accused. People v. Robinson (1969), 105 Ill. App.2d 57. • 4, 5 The defendant also urges that negative inferences are to be drawn from the fact that the name of the accident pedestrian was on the list of possible witnesses but was never called.

  7. People v. Herbert

    268 N.E.2d 205 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 4 times

    Under these circumstances we must sustain it. People v. Hanna, supra; see People v. Close, 60 Ill. App.2d 477, 208 N.E.2d 644 and compare People v. Robinson, 105 Ill. App.2d 57, 245 N.E.2d 137. For these reasons we reverse with directions that the trial court deny defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Reversed and remanded with directions.