The PEOPLE v. Staples

Citations: 275 N.E.2d 259; 1 Ill. App. 3d 922; 1971 Ill. App. LEXIS 2017Docket: 54653

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; September 15, 1971; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Roosevelt Staples was convicted of armed robbery after a bench trial and sentenced to two to six years in prison. He appealed his conviction on three grounds: 1) insufficient proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, 2) the validity of his initial confrontation with police as a "stop and frisk" versus an unlawful arrest, and 3) the absence of counsel during his pre-indictment lineup, which he argued violated his Sixth Amendment rights.

The court summarized the facts, emphasizing the credible testimony of Mrs. Shirley Finley, a hotel clerk who was alone during the robbery on January 29, 1968. She identified Staples as the assailant who threatened her with a gun and demanded cash, which she provided. Finley noted the well-lit conditions that allowed her to clearly observe Staples, reinforcing her positive identification of him in court and later in a police lineup.

The court dismissed the defense's arguments regarding minor discrepancies in Finley's description of the gun and Staples' coat color, asserting they did not undermine her credibility. The court concluded that her identification was sufficient for conviction. Additionally, the defense argued that Staples' arrest was unlawful, claiming the gun seized should be suppressed; however, this point was not detailed in the court's summary. The judgment of the trial court was ultimately affirmed.

Officer George Kush testified regarding the events of February 5, 1968, when he was informed about hotel robberies near Chicago Stadium. After spotting a man matching the suspect's description at approximately 3:05 A.M., Kush and his partner confronted the individual. During the encounter, the defendant appeared nervous and reached for his pockets, prompting the officers to conduct a search. As Officer LaPierre began to pat him down, the defendant fled, and Officer Kush pursued him. During the chase, the defendant discarded a gun before stopping and surrendering.

The defendant argued that his initial arrest was unlawful due to a lack of probable cause, although he acknowledged that his flight created probable cause thereafter. The State countered that the interaction was a lawful "stop and frisk" under Terry v. Ohio, asserting that the officers acted within their rights to stop and question the defendant based on his suspicious behavior. The statute allowed them to stop any person suspected of committing an offense and to conduct a pat down for weapons if they reasonably feared for their safety.

Given the defendant's nervous demeanor and actions, the officers were justified in their initial stop and subsequent search. The defendant's flight provided further probable cause for a valid arrest. Therefore, the trial court was correct in denying the motion to suppress the revolver found during the arrest.

The defendant argues that the lack of legal counsel during his pre-indictment lineup violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Appellant's counsel acknowledges the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling in People v. Palmen, which restricts the application of U.S. Supreme Court precedent regarding lineups to post-indictment situations. They request that the court reconsider this limitation based on recent rulings and reject it. However, the court affirms that it cannot overrule established precedents, including People v. Palmer and others, as its role is to uphold constitutional rights as defined by higher courts. The U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Wade, mandates the exclusion of in-court identifications stemming from a lack of counsel at post-indictment lineups, a principle the Illinois Supreme Court similarly applies only to post-indictment confrontations. Consequently, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.