People v. Adams

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Citation106 Ill.App.2d 396,245 N.E.2d 904
Docket NumberGen. No. 50229
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mae Gillespie ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date27 February 1969

Page 904

245 N.E.2d 904
106 Ill.App.2d 396
PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Mae Gillespie ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Gen. No. 50229.
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.
Feb. 27, 1969.

[106 Ill.App.2d 398]

Page 905

George C. Adams, Chicago, for appellant.

John J. Stamos, Chicago, Elmer C. Kissane, James Haddad, James Zagel, James Heelan, Chicago, of counsel, for appellee.

SULLIVAN, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction for theft in the amount of $11,248.44. Trial was by jury, and the court imposed a sentence of one to five years in the State Institution in Dwight, Illinois.

The defendant contends: 1) that she was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; 2) that the court erred in not discharging her under the Four-Term Statute; 3) that there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof; 4) that evidence was improperly excluded; and 5) that the trial court and the prosecution were guilty of misconduct which would justify a reversal of the conviction.

On August 31, 1962 the defendant was employed as a cashier at the Wells-Harrison Currency Exchange which was one of eight currency exchanges comprising the Regal Currency Exchange System, Inc. She had been initially employed by the system in 1948 and had spent some time working in the company's main office. While working in the main office, the defendant worked with Bea Fogle who daily checked the reports of the various cashiers in each of the eight exchanges.

Each cashier was required to make out daily reports which were sent to the main office to be checked by Bea Fogle. These reports indicated the amount of money on hand at the beginning of the day, the amount of money which was deposited with the bank, the amount of money which was shipped from the bank to the exchange, the amount of checks that were cashed, and other data [106 Ill.App.2d 399] which reflected all other services performed at that exchange for a given day. In addition to this daily report, the cashier submitted fee sheets and duplicate deposit tickets which were dated by the cashier and which showed the content and

Page 906

the amount of the day's deposit. The shipments and deposits were transported by the Armored Express Company. The money shipped to the exchange was credited to an account maintained by the exchange at the Exchange National Bank. The money that was deposited was debited to this account. Tickets debiting and crediting the account were sent to the main office.

The evidence produced by the State was designed to show that the defendant had embezzled funds by reporting that deposits were made on a particular day when in fact such deposits were made several days later and by not reporting the receipt of money shipments from the bank until several days after such shipments were actually received. Such a manipulation of the reported dates of shipments and deposits would enable the defendant to continue to cover up an increasing shortage of funds. Such a procedure would have the effect of decreasing the amount of cash that the defendant should have on hand at the exchange if the dates of the shipments nad deposits had been correctly recorded in her daily reports.

Mr. Abe Creenfield, the President of the Regal Currency Exchange System, Inc. testified for the prosecution. He stated that the theft did not become immediately apparent to him because he treated the delays as items 'in transit' between the exchange and the bank. However, in February, 1962 the bank notified him that his account was overdrawn in the sum of $22,000.00. Subsequently he was notified of other instances of overdrafts. In order to determine whether these overdrafts were caused by delays in the transporting by Armored Express, he went to the exchange operated by the defendant [106 Ill.App.2d 400] to check Armored's Receipt Book which was kept at the exchange and which contained the date of each pickup signed by the Armored messenger. The dates in the book had been obliterated, and the defendant informed him that the book had fallen into a pail of water. Greenfield then made a detailed comparison between the daily reports and the bank statements whereupon he discovered that there had been as much as a four-day delay between the time of actual deposits and the date such deposits were recorded by the defendant. Delays were also found in the reporting of money shipments. The witness made an unannounced check at the exchange on August 31, 1962 after being advised by Bea Fogle that the defendant had requested that three shipmens be made on that day. One shipment was in the amount of $9,400.00 and the other two shipments were each $10,500.00. Greenfield was met at the exchange by an investigator from the United States Fidelity and Casualty Company and by Richard Wayne of the Burns Detective Agency.

Greenfield further testified that he counted the defendant's cash on hand which amounted to approximately $3,000.00, which revealed about a $700.00 shortage. He noticed that the defendant had reported only one of the two $10,500.00 shipments which were supposed to have been made that day. If this shipment had been reported, the record would have revealed a shortage of about $11,200.00. The witness stated that he told the two men that there was a $700.00 shortage but also that there was a possibility of a much larger shortage.

On the next day, September 1, 1962, Greenfield received the tickets from the bank which revealed that the two $10,500.00 shipments had in fact been made on August 31. Accompanied by a Chicago Police Officer, Richard O'Leary, the complaining witness went to the exchange and discovered a completed daily report for the prior day which reported both shipments but which [106 Ill.App.2d 401] was not the same report he had reviewed with the defendant on August 31. Greenfield again counted the money in the outer safe which still amounted to about $3,000.00. This still indicated a shortage of about $11,200.00. Mr. Greenfield denied that he ever had a key to the inner safe and he denied that $13,000.00 was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Casas, Docket No. 120797
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • December 5, 2017
    ...recordkeeping ( People v. Griffiths , 67 Ill.App.3d 16, 20, 23 Ill.Dec. 734, 384 N.E.2d 528 (1978) ), embezzlement ( People v. Adams , 106 Ill.App. 2d 396, 405, 245 N.E.2d 904 (1969) ; People v. Barrett , 405 Ill. 188, 194, 90 N.E.2d 94 (1950) ), and conspiracy ( People v. Cooper , 239 Ill.......
  • People v. Casas, 2–15–0456.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 14, 2016
    ...such as where the crime is conspiracy (People v. Konkowski, 378 Ill. 616, 621, 39 N.E.2d 13 (1941) ), embezzlement (People v. Adams, 106 Ill.App.2d 396, 405, 245 N.E.2d 904 (1969) ), criminal contempt (People v. Levinson, 75 Ill.App.3d 429, 436, 31 Ill.Dec. 307, 394 N.E.2d 509 (1979) ), fai......
  • Griffin v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 4, 1977
    ...portion of the crime is within the period, although another portion thereof is not. United States v. Andreas, supra; People v. Adams, 106 Ill.App.2d 396, 245 N.E.2d 904 (1969); and 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § Griffin further contends that there is a material variance between the indictment and......
  • People v. Levinson, 76-722
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 13, 1979
    ...offenses and are not complete until the last known act in furtherance of the offense has been completed. (People v. Adams (1969), 106 Ill.App.2d 396, 245 N.E.2d 904; People v. Konkowski (1941), 378 Ill. 616, 39 N.E.2d 13.) As stated previously, the defendant claims that the last act was the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT