People v. Arnold

• Decision Date: 22 March 1963
• Docket Number: No. 36786,36786
• Citation: 189 N.E.2d 241,27 Ill.2d 294
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. James ARNOLD, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 241

189 N.E.2d 241

27 Ill.2d 294

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v.James ARNOLD, Plaintiff in Error.

No. 36786.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 22, 1963.

Ronald F. Grossman, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O'Brien, Asst. Attys.Gen., and Edward J. Hladis and Ronald W. Olson, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.

DAILY, Justice.

Defendant, James Arnold, upon being tried by a jury in the criminal court of Cook County, was found guilty of armed robbery and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of two to six years.He prosecutes this writ of error for review, contending that his identity was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that he was denied a fair trial when the subject of narcotics came to the attention of the jury.

Around 2:30 A.M. on December 2, 1960, Charles Smith, a taxi driver, picked up three men in the vicinity of Rhodes and Cottage Grove avenues in the city of Chicago and drove them to an address which turned out to be the last house on a deadend street adjacent to a railroad right-of-way.Upon arriving there one of the men draw a gun, after which Smith was searched and $27 taken from his person, then he was forced to remove his clothing.The men then ran around a building and when Smith followed he found his clothing in back of the structure and also arrived in time to see the men run to Cottage Grove Avenue and turn south.After putting on his clothing Smith followed in the same direction and, as he reached the corner of 35th Street and Cottage Grove, saw defendant, whom he recognized as one of the robbers, come out of a tavern.He shouted at defendant, but said that the latter walked away fast.

Smith commandeered a passing cab, explained what had happened, and followed defendant for several blocks until a police car was encountered.After informing the officers of the occurrence, Smith transferred to the police car and defendant was arrested two blocks away.The squad car was then driven back to the tavern to see if the other robbers were there and, in the dim light of a washroom, Smith tentatively identified another man as one of his assailants.However, upon seeing the man in a better light he conceded he couldn't make an identification but stated he was positive about defendant.The other men were never apprehended.

Defendant, supported by his sister, interposed an alibi that he had spent the night up to 1:00 A.M. baby-sitting with his sister's children, and also introduced into evidence a transportation system transfer to support his testimony that he had been riding either upon an elevated train or a bus at or about the time the crime was reported to have been committed.The latter evidence, however, lost much of its vitality upon cross-examination when defendant sought to explain how he still had in his possession a transfer he had purportedly used, and his reason for being in the neighborhood where he was apprehended.

The choice between the conflicting testimony was for...