*1 County Circuit Court of Vermilion is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
TRAPP, SMITH, J., P. J. and concur. Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, State
Larry Harper, Defendant-Appellee. 11,132. No.
Gen. Fourth District. July 30,1969. TRAPP, J., dissenting. P. Attorney of Vermilion Jones, Morton State’s
John Attorney Scott, (William General County, J. of Danville Leach, Springfield, Fred G. Illinois, of State *2 appellant. counsel), Attorney General, for Assistant Unger, Sr., (John Unger Stewart, of Danville and counsel), appellee. for
CRAVEN, J.,
opinion of the court.
delivered the
rape. Prior
for
crime of
The defendant was indicted
the
suppress
prose
certain
moved to
to trial
the defendant
relating
use of a
“truth
cution evidence
to the
so-called
ultimately entered an order
The circuit court
serum.”
appealed
suppressing
direct
the evidence and the State
ly
Supreme Court. After
were filed the
to the
briefs
appeal
Supreme Court,
motion,
on its own
transferred the
ground
order
court for decision on the
the
this
the evidence
not
final
re
was
a
by
Supreme
Lerch, 34 Ill2d
Court.
viewable
(1966).
jurisdic
The and in answer affidavits are summarized court, the order of trial from and these documents following factual recitation uncontroverted: seems to be George- raped
One Carmen in her home in Goodwin was town, Illinois, April 14, on 1967. At the time of the as- period sault and a considerable of time thereafter identify the victim maintained that she was unable to living her assailant. The victim in was a house owned by parents formerly of the defendant and he had request resided the house. At of the sheriff of County the Vermilion victim and the defendant were by “polygraph Depart- examined examiner” of the State Safety, expressed ment of Public and that examiner opinion that such indicated examination the victim telling was the truth when stated unable to she she was telling her assailant and that the defendant was the truth when he denied in the involvement offense. polygraph The April examination was in of 1967. January voluntarily the victim submitted psychiatric by herself examination a Dr. Kiersch during hypnosis which she was examined under both and while under the influence of sodium amobarbital. any productive examination not informa- tion.
A one and one-half hour interview under the influence given drug, intravenously, resulted first victim’s assertion that she did know not who was who raped her room, or who came into her and later the in- terviewer stated she asserted that it was de- report point fendant further indicates that at one *3 perpetrated she identified another who as the one the psychiatrist expressed opinion assault. The the the hysterical subsequent victim suffered from amnesia to drug the offense and that her under the behavior sub- expressed opinion stantiated this. He further the drug her recall to the as occurrence events under the patient, “at least 95 accurate and that this “under %” Amytal, feels that she could see her attacker and could Larry Harper him as . .. .” The trial court polygraph-examination ruled that results were inad- missible, any and further held “That evidence of facts or supposed facts which the said Carmen Goodwin solely Amytal learned as a result of or the use of ‘drug or other so-called serum’ is inadmissible evidence in this case and suppressed the same is ordered in the justice.” appeal solely interest This relates to that portion of the order the evidence toas drugs and no issue is submitted with reference to the the trial the action polygraph affirm examination. We court. (1966), 811, 220 People Myers, NE2d
In
35 Ill2d
557,
trix in a case was letters ad- mitting that her were In an effort accusations false. rehabilitate witness the Government introduced a re- cording subsequent psychiatrist of her interview with a while she was under the pentothal. influence of sodium Appeals reversed, citing by The Court of an article two professors (62 law-school and two medical-school Yale 315) narcoanalysis by LJ which concluded that no regarded by means an infallible tool nor should be so psychiatrists. tape recording narcoanalysis specifically was held to be inadmissible. The court did not *4 pass upon question psychiatrist of whether the could express opinion accuracy own as to the truthfulness or testimony. of the victim’s Sain, 293,
In Townsend 770, v. 372 9 L US Ed2d 83 (1963), CtS 745 held was that a confession obtained
207
drugs
while under the influence
In
of
was inadmissible.
drugs
23
1310,
ALR2d
of
in
effort to
an
ascertain
equated
tests,
truth is
with the use of lie-detector
and
yet recognized
we
there
are
told that no
court has as
admissibility of the
of
results
“truth serum tests.”
denying
vary
for
reasons
to
admission
be said
but the
admissibility
Thus,
seldom
results
do.
some cases
grounds
inadequate
seems
have been denied on the
of
inadmissibility
proof
foundation or
for
of
want
of relia
(Orange
bility
Commonwealth,
423,
191
v.
Va
61 SE2d
(1950);
(Mo),
(1926)),
267
v.
State Hudson
In this case
of the so-called
influence
prosecutrix
under
clearly
to establish
drug”
offered
be
would
“truth
People assert
matter asserted.
of the
truthfulness
prosecutrix should
grounds
that
on the
ini
her failure
explain
the reason
allowed to
support
thereof
tially identify
cite in
her attacker and
329, 89 ALR2d
Izzo, 14
151 NE2d
v.
Ill2d
864, 80
403, 4 L Ed2d
denied,
(1958), cert
362 US
187
involving
drugs), and
(a
fear —not
(I960)
case
S Ct
Harding
Maryland,
urge
the case
further
(1968) approved the
App 230,
SMITH, J., concurs.
TRAPP, J.,P. dissents. dissenting:
TRAPP, J., principal opinion upon I concur inadmissibility “product” amytal of the sodium in- agree terview, I cannot but the order of the trial appealable court an order as evidence un- der the Court Rule 604. The trial court not has *6 yet determined from evidence in the record what are supposed or facts facts which Carmen Goodwin amytal solely interview, upon learned from the presented suppress the issues the order does not testi- mony upon any specific matter fact. of Attorney “pro- a State’s motion for answers allegation tective order” with the can now Goodwin apparent the defendant. It is that defendant’s solely testimony counsel would insist that such is the re- amytal necessary of sult interview. will It then be trial court to evidence hear and determine wheth- testimony subject ruling er such is to exclusion under the announced. statutory suppress confession,
Under the motions 38, 114-11, suppress illegally c seized, c § evidence 38, 114-12, the court evidence hears as to the manner of obtaining items evidence and then an order enters stating specific items of evidence are to be excluded. Upon court, upon review the is whether record, admitting excluding erred in item A or item X. missing. steps result, prosecu- Here such are As a argument essentially tion’s ques- brief and series particular fact. Neither nor counsel this court can now suppressed. what state has been The defendant’s “protective motion was for a order.” ruling responsive, only The court’s but it was ad- visory prospective rulings upon not, fact, It suppress, e., evidence. did i. determine specific testimony matters of would excluded admissibility. under the stated rule of