delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendants Dennis Clinton and Joseph Oldani were indicted by a Kendall County grand jury for burglary. Each defendant was represented by separate court-appointed counsel. Both waived their right to a jury trial and both were found guilty after a bench trial. Defendant Clinton was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 1M to 4% years; defendant Oldani Was sentenced to 3 years’ probation. Each defendant filed separate notice of appeal, however their appeals have been consolidated.
The sole issue on appeal concerns whether the State’s response to defendants’ requests for their oral statements and a list of witnesses to such statements was in violation of the rules of discovery such that the subsequent introduction of their oral statements deprived them of their right to a fair trial.
Defendant Clinton’s discovery motion requests #1 and #2 sought the names and addresses of persons whom the State intended to call as witnesses along with their relevant written or recorded statements. In response the State listed, among others, Captain Goins of the Kendall County Sheriff’s Department and delivered to defense counsel a police report filled out by Captain Goins which contained the following:
“Both suspects were given their constitutional rights (Moronda) [sic] and asked what they were doing inside the residence. Oldani replied saying that they were both out of work and needed some money. Both stated that this was their first time and had never been in trouble before.”
Clinton’s request #6 asked for the substance of any oral statements made by defendant and/or by his codefendant and for a list of witnesses to the making and acknowledgement of such statements. The State’s response to request #6 was “No oral statement made by Joseph A. Oldani.”
Defendant Oldani also filed a discovery motion with the same requests, and received the same responses.
Captain Goins was called as the State’s first witness, testifying that he proceeded to the residence in response to an alarm in progress report over his speaker and that when he reached the rear of the house, he heard a fellow officer shouting to someone to stop and saw the two defendants coming to a stop from a run towards a cornfield behind the house. Captain Goins then began to testify to a conversation with the defendants, to which he was the only witness, in the back seat of his squad car. An objection by Oldani concerning the Miranda warnings was overruled, and the witness proceeded to testify to substantially the same conversation as appeared in his police report. The attorneys for both defendants then objected to this testimony on the ground that the State had failed to disclose these statements in response to their direct request in the motions for discovery. The court overruled the objection and let the testimony stand.
On appeal, the defendants contend that they were misled by the States response to request #6; that even though the substance of the conversation testified to was disclosed to them, they were deprived of their right to a fair trial by the State’s violation of the full disclosure policy embedded in section 114 — 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, par. 114 — 10) and Supreme Court Rule 412(a) (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 412(a)(ii)). Defendant cites People v. O’Connell (1964),
The facts in the instant case however distinguish it from Rand. Here the substance of the statements introduced at trial was clearly disclosed to the defendants. It was likewise made clear to defendants from the State’s response to their discovery motions that the statements were made to Captain Goins. Thus, the only noncompliance here was the State’s failure to repeat these statements in response to request #6, and to state that there were no witnesses present when the statements were made to Captain Goins. Although we do not condone the State’s method of responding, the defendants were in possession of all the information as a result of the State’s somewhat convoluted response to the discovery order.
The legislative purpose behind these provisions is to provide the accused with protection against surprise, unfairness, and inadequate preparation. (People v. O’Connell (1964),
We will not consider defendants’ contention of possible Sixth Amendment violations based on Bruton v. United States (1968),
We further note that proof of the guilt of defendants in this case was overwhelming, that even without the admission of the statements, guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.
T. J. MORAN, P. J, and RECHENMACHER, J., concur.