Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

The People v. Gayles

24 Ill. 2d 242 (Ill. 1962)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
The People v. Gayles

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Sinisi

    373 N.E.2d 724 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 1 times

    The trial court record imports verity, and it cannot be impeached, contradicted or amended except by reason of other matters appearing of record. People v. Gayles (1962), 24 Ill.2d 242, 181 N.E.2d 83. • 3 The record before this court demonstrates that on the date of trial, the defendant was represented by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty and waived trial by jury, and was thereafter found guilty of both offenses after a trial before the court.

  2. People v. Scott

    22 Ill. App. 3d 770 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)   Cited 5 times

    There is no stipulation by the defendant to the admission of the lab report reflected in the record. See People v. Gayles, 24 Ill.2d 242, 181 N.E.2d 83. It is obvious that only an expert could identify the substances taken from the defendant as dangerous drugs.

  3. People v. Hicks

    308 N.E.2d 207 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)   Cited 2 times
    In People v. Hicks (1974), 17 Ill. App.3d 541, 544, 308 N.E.2d 207, the court specifically held that the failure to indicate to whom the evidence was delivered at the crime laboratory was not fatal. Moreover, any lack of foundation is not fatal because of Officer Hanrahan's testimony that his field test for an opium derivative was positive.

    Testimony regarding the contents of this report, made by a police chemist who never testified in court, was clearly inadmissible as hearsay. There is no stipulation by the defendant to the admission of the lab report reflected in the record." See People v. Gayles, 24 Ill.2d 242, 181 N.E.2d 83. • 2 The case at bar is distinguishable, however.