“exigent circumstances may exist where there is only a serious crime coupled with a reasonable possibility of imminent danger to life, serious damage to property, destruction of evidence, or the likelihood of flight”
How later courts described this case
- “exigent circumstances may exist where there is only a serious crime coupled with a reasonable possibility of imminent danger to life, serious damage to property, destruction of evidence, or the likelihood of flight”
- the offense was not committed in the presence of the police, and the defendant was arrested four days later
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. Fields, 135 Ill. 2d 18 (1990)
People v. Yates (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 502, upon which the defendants rely, is distinguishable.
The opinion
JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Although I agree -with Justice Simon that prejudicial error requires reversal of the judgment and remand for a new trial, I do not agree with all that is said in his dissenting opinion. For that reason I add these few brief comments.
The refusal to admit into evidence the composite police sketch was, in my opinion, prejudicial error. Officer Steiner testified that Tim Lee and Larry Hope were satisfied that the composite accurately pictured the man they had seen on the stairs. On that basis, it should have been admitted into evidence and been made available for cross-examination of these witnesses by defense counsel.
Even more damaging and prejudicial to the defendant than the failure to admit the police sketch was the argument of the assistant State’s Attorney described in Justice Simon’s dissent. There is absolutely no basis in the record for the assumption that the attacker attempted to rape the victim. That type of inflammatory argument has been repeatedly condemned and is a sufficient basis for granting the defendant a new trial.
This conviction rests on the testimony of two boys and a disputed fingerprint. The evidence of guilt is less than overwhelming, and the errors were so prejudicial that defendant was denied a fair trial.
JUSTICE CLARK joins in this partial concurrence and partial dissent.