People v. Baker

• Decision Date: 23 May 1956
• Docket Number: No. 33864,33864
• Citation: 134 N.E.2d 786,8 Ill.2d 522
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Charles BAKER, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 786

134 N.E.2d 786

8 Ill.2d 522

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Charles BAKER, Plaintiff in Error.

No. 33864.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 23, 1956.

Richard H. Devine, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and John Gutknecht, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, Edwin A. Strugala, Irwin D. Bloch, John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, and William L. Carlin, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

DAVIS, Justice.

The defendant was found guilty of the crime of armed robbery by a jury in the criminal court of Cook County; the court overruled his motion for a new trial, denied his application for a probation, and sentenced him to serve a term of not less than two years nor more than six years in the Illinois State Penitentiary. He prosecutes this writ of error to review the judgment of the trial court, assigning and arguing the following reasons for reversal: (1) that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt because the identification of the defendant was doubtful, vague and uncertain, and the testimony of an accomplice was unworthy of belief; (2) that the court erred in failing to inform the jury that John Delbert was a court's witness and that defendant was not vouching for his truth and veracity; (3) that the court erred in permitting the cross-examination of Delbert concerning his conviction of other crimes; (4) that the court erred in allowing Delbert to be impeached on immaterial and irrelevant matters to the prejudice of the defendant.

The first two assignments of error have been waived. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial containing nine specific written assignments of error, none of which raised either the question of the legal sufficiency of the evidence, generally or in the particulars urged here, or the failure of the court to inform the jury that Delbert was a court's witness. Where the grounds for a motion for a new trial are stated in writing, a reviewing court is limited to a consideration of the errors alleged in the written motion and all other errors are deemed to have been waived. People v. Cosper, 5 Ill.2d 97, 125 N.E.2d 60; People v. Brand, 415 Ill. 329, 114 N.E.2d 370, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 959, 74 S.Ct. 709, 98 L.Ed. 1103; People v. Thompson, 406 Ill. 555, 97 N.E.2d 349; People v. Bindrin, 404 Ill. 532, 89 N.E.2d 530, certiorari denied 339 U.S. 939, 70 S.Ct. 670, 94 L.Ed. 1356. We note, moreover, that the defendant offered no limiting, qualifying or cautionary instruction as to the status of a court's witness. He could have tendered such instruction in this case, but failed to do so; and he cannot now fairly object that it was not given. People v. Levine, 342 Ill. 353, 174 N.E. 378; People v. Lawson, 328 Ill. 602, 160 N.E. 125.

Thomas Casey, an inmate of the reformatory for boys at Sheridan, Illinois, and a witness for the State, testified that Ronald Dudak, as driver of the automobile in question, the defendant Baker, John Delbert and himself were riding around and formulated plans for a 'stick-up'; that he chose the President Hotel in the city of Chicago as the place for the crime; that Dudak parked the automobile on Cleveland Street and there remained while the defendant, Delbert and himself committed the robbery in said hotel; that after the robbery the three ran back to the parked automobile which Dudak drove from the vicinity; and that the money was placed in the glove compartment of the automobile and was later divided evenly between the four.

The court, at defendant's request, called John Delbert, who was also an inmate of the reformatory at Sheridan, as a court's witness. This witness was cross-examined extensively by counsel for the defendant and the State's Attorney. He testified in substance that defendant was with him, Dudak and Casey, in Casey's automobile, from early evening on June 24, 1953, until sometime in the morning on June 25, 1953; that when they drove to the President Hotel, defendant was dopey or sleepy and did not get out of the car; that defendant's condition was apparently due to the fact that he had been drinking early in the evening; that defendant did not participate in the division of the money or receive any part of it. On cross-examination by the State's Attorney and without objection by defense counsel, Delbert related that he had been convicted of other infamous crimes, one of which was the robbery of an individual on June 25, 1953, the date of the robbery at the President Hotel. He was also cross-examined as to whether either Baker or himself got out of the car at any time or place before arriving at the hotel in question. He finally related that he had gotten out of the car on...