The People v. Collins

12 Citing cases

  1. The People v. Greer

    28 Ill. 2d 107 (Ill. 1963)   Cited 36 times
    In People v. Greer, 28 Ill.2d 107, and People v. Munziato, 24 Ill.2d 432, we held that the privilege protects only against testimonial compulsion.

    ( People v. Norman, 24 Ill.2d 403, 408; People v. Clay, 27 Ill.2d 27.) The fact that the evidence showed that the defendant acted on a thin profit margin was properly a factor to be put into the balance by the jury. ( People v. Collins, 25 Ill.2d 302, 304.) And the testimony of Manson concerning the passage of the dollar bills and the fluorescent powder did not require for its acceptance that the bills themselves be produced and offered in evidence.

  2. The People v. Cain

    35 Ill. 2d 184 (Ill. 1966)   Cited 25 times
    In People v. Cain (1966), 35 Ill.2d 184, 220 N.E.2d 195, cert. denied (1967), 385 U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, 87 S.Ct. 781, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a search warrant which specified "third floor front of the building" was not so vague that the evidence obtained had to be suppressed.

    However, a rule requiring not only that continuity of possession be established, but also that there be positive identification by everyone concerned, would impose an unnecessary burden, while it would not assure a fair trial to the accused. ( People v. Collins, 25 Ill.2d 302, 305; People v. Judkins, 10 Ill.2d 445, 448.) Measured by any reasonable standard the continuity of possession of this packet was sufficiently shown to entitle the exhibit to be admitted.

  3. The People v. French

    210 N.E.2d 540 (Ill. 1965)   Cited 24 times

    All denied any physical maltreatment of either Hayes or defendant French. Defendant's principal contentions are (1) that the oral confessions should not have been admitted into evidence because defendant, at the time they were given, had not been apprised of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to counsel; (2) that evidence admitted at the trial was taken during an unconstitutional search and seizure. It is also contended that the confessions should not have been admitted because of the prosecution's failure to produce a material witness present at the time they were made. However, the State points out that no objections were made at the trial to the admission of the oral confessions and the items seized at Alice Cooper's apartment. It is well settled that objections to the admission of evidence not made in the trial court will not be considered on appeal, e.g. People v. Witherspoon, 27 Ill.2d 483, 492; People v. Collins, 25 Ill.2d 302, 304. This rule applies equally to confessions ( People v. Tuttle, 382 Ill. 147), and tangible evidence allegedly illegally seized ( People v. Valecek, 404 Ill. 461, cert. denied 339 U.S. 925, 94 L.ed. 1347, 70 S.Ct. 616). We believe this principle a salutary one serving a legitimate State interest in that compliance therewith focuses the trial court's attention on alleged error, thereby quite possibly obviating the necessity for appeals and reversals.

  4. The People v. Davis

    33 Ill. 2d 134 (Ill. 1965)   Cited 48 times
    Finding the defendant guilty of the unlawful possession of cocaine, where the defendant was the driver of a car and packets of cocaine were found on the floor next to the driver's seat and in the "crack" of the seat

    Under previous decisions of this court such proof is sufficient to complete the State's case. People v. Collins, 25 Ill.2d 302; People v. Polk, 19 Ill.2d 310. For the reasons stated, the conviction of the defendant under indictment 62-1411 is hereby sustained.

  5. The People v. Maurice

    202 N.E.2d 480 (Ill. 1964)   Cited 29 times
    In Maurice, the reviewing court held that there was no link between the controlled substance introduced into evidence and the defendant, as the stipulation presented by the State failed to connect the link between the substance the chemist analyzed with the packets that were recovered from the defendant.

    The other errors complained of are unlikely to reoccur, and we need not determine their effect here. While positive identification of the physical evidence by every person concerned therewith, as well as establishment of continuity of possession is not required ( People v. Collins, 25 Ill.2d 302; People v. Judkins, 10 Ill.2d 445), it is essential to a conviction for illegally dispensing narcotics that the material dispensed be proved to be narcotics. The difficulty here lies not in a failure to connect with the defendant the packets secured by the officers — this was adequately accomplished — but in the failure to connect the material analyzed by the chemist with the same packets connected with Maurice.

  6. The People v. Norman

    28 Ill. 2d 77 (Ill. 1963)   Cited 80 times
    In People v. Norman, 28 Ill.2d 77, it was declared that although the testimony of a narcotics addict is scrutinized with caution, his testimony may be sufficient to sustain a conviction if credible under the surrounding circumstances.

    Since no proper objection was made to the testimony in the trial court, the admission of the testimony is not now subject to review. People v. Collins, 25 Ill.2d 302, 304; People v. Washington, 23 Ill.2d 546, 548. Defendant next contends that the prosecutor made certain improper and prejudicial remarks in closing argument which deprived the defendant of a fair and impartial trial.

  7. People v. Marquis

    321 N.E.2d 480 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)   Cited 18 times

    However, a rule requiring not only that continuity of possession be established, but also that there be positive identification by everyone concerned, would impose an unnecessary burden, while it would not assure a fair trial to the accused. ( People v. Collins, 25 Ill.2d 302, 305; People v. Judkins, 10 Ill.2d 445, 448.) In People v. Resketo, 3 Ill. App.3d 633, 279 N.E.2d 432, also cited by defendant, there was a total lack of proof that the narcotics analyzed by the laboratory were the same found in the possession of the defendant.

  8. People v. Wilkerson

    302 N.E.2d 653 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant's failure to object had the effect of waiving any error regarding admissibility. ( People v. Collins, 25 Ill.2d 302, 185 N.E.2d 147; People v. Luckett, 24 Ill.2d 550, 182 N.E.2d 696.) Thus, the trial court could properly have considered such testimony.

  9. People v. Lampson

    6 Ill. App. 3d 1099 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)   Cited 12 times

    "A rule that required not only continuity of possession be established, but also that there be positive identification by everyone concerned, would impose an unnecessary burden, while it would not assure a fairer trial to the accused." (See also People v. Collins, 25 Ill.2d 302, 185 N.E.2d 147.) More precise proof of continuity of possession than that which we have in this case is not required. • 9 The defendant further assigns as error certain remarks made by the prosecutor during his closing argument.

  10. People v. Myers

    94 Ill. App. 2d 340 (Ill. App. Ct. 1968)   Cited 14 times

    The record conclusively discloses that the articles were identified as those taken from the defendant's home, and that they were in the sheriff's possession continuously up to the time of trial. In this court defendant also objects that the exhibits had no relevancy to the crimes for which he was being tried. It is axiomatic, however, that objections to the admission of evidence not made in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. (People v. French, 33 Ill.2d 146, 149, 210 N.E.2d 540; People v. Witherspoon, 27 Ill.2d 483, 190 N.E.2d 281; People v. Collins, 25 Ill.2d 302, 185 N.E.2d 147.) [12-14] When two character witnesses for defendant were cross-examined, the prosecutor, over objection by defendant, was permitted to inquire specifically into defendant's use of intoxicating liquors, and to ask whether he was the kind of man who would chase his wife out of the house with a shotgun. It has long been held that the reputation of a person cannot be impeached by particular acts of bad conduct (People v. Page, 365 Ill. 524, 528, 6 N.E.2d 845; People v. Anderson, 337 Ill. 310, 331, 169 N.E. 243; People v. Hermens, 5 Ill.2d 277, 286, 125 N.E.2d 500), and we are inclined to agree that the cross-examination here exceeded proper limits.