People v. Barad
| Decision Date | 10 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 23264.,23264. |
| Citation | 362 Ill. 584,200 N.E. 858 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BARAD. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Thomas J. Lynch, Judge.
Maurice Barad was convicted upon an indictment charging robbery and robbery with a gun, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Harold L. Levy and Ode L. Rankin, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and A. B. Dennis, of Danville (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Richard H. Devine, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Maurice Barad was convicted in the criminal court of Cook county upon an indictment containing two counts, one charging robbery and the other charging robbery with a gun. The jury returned a general verdict finding defendant guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and he was sentenced to the penitentiary. He has sued out this writ of error.
The Auto Car Sales & Service Company, in Chicago, was held up and robbed of $587.45 at about 1:15 p. m. on November 22, 1933. Magnus B. Willsberg, secretary to the manager of the company, Loretta Cullina, switchboard operator, and a driver for a customer named Zimmerman, were in the office. The company's payroll arrived shortly after noon and was locked in the drawer of a desk. Two men, one armed with a sawed-off shotgun and the other with a revolver, entered the office about 1:15 p. m. They compelled the people in it to lie on the floor in an adjoining room. Failing to find to payroll, they brought Willsberg to the desk and made him unlock the drawer. The robbers took the money and escaped.
Willsberg and Miss Cullina positively identified the defendant as the man with the sawed-off shotgun. When he came into the office he said, ‘This is a stick-up.’ Miss Cullina testified that he stood in front of her switchboard and she kept a steady gaze at him. Willsberg testified he saw defendant's eyes and all of his face. A description of the robbers was given to the police. Willsberg and Miss Cullina went to several showups at the detective bureau prior to January 15, but defendant was not in custody. Willsberg did not see defendant after the robbery until the preliminary hearing. Defendant was arrested on January 15 following the robbery. On the afternoon of that day Miss Cullina was taken to the office of Capt. Zimmer, at the detective bureau. Willsberg was not there. Police Officer Matt Kauffman testified that as soon as defendant was brought in Miss Cullina said, ‘That is the man.’ On the trial she identified defendant as the man she saw on that occasion in Capt. Zimmer's office and as the man who stood near her at the switchboard with a shotgun, at the time of the robbery.
The defense was an alibi. Defendant and his brother, Jack Barad, testified that on the day of the holdup defendant was working for his father, who was engaged in the boot and shoe business at 636 Maxwell street; that defendant went to lunch about noon and returned about 12:30 o'clock; that Jack Barad went to lunch at about 12:45 and returned at 1:30, and that defendant was there when he came back.
One of the defendant's points set out in his statement of the case is, that the court erred in overruling his objection to the proof of corporate existence of the company, but no citation of authority is contained in the brief to support it, nor is the contention mentioned in the argument. It is therefore waived and will not be considered. Lingle v. West Chicago Park Com'rs, 222 Ill. 384, 78 N.E. 794;City of Benton v. Blake, 259 Ill. 211, 102 N.E. 170.
When defendant was before the felony court on preliminary hearing, the case was twice called. Police Officer Kelly was not present on the first call. Miss Cullina and Willsberg were sworn, and in the presence of defendant Miss Cullina was asked by the state's attorney and by the committing magistrate if she saw the man in the courtroom who held up the place of business. She did not answer either question, but asked the judge to await the arrival of Officer Kelly. Her request was complied with, and upon Kelly's arrival the hearing proceeded. Counsel for the defense attempted to show these facts in detail, but the trial court sustained a number of objections to counsel's questions and offers of proof. It is claimed that the evidence of these events, if admitted,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Neiman
...render evidence of identification incompetent, but only affects its weight. People v. De Suno, 354 Ill. 387, 188 N.E. 466; People v. Barad, 362 Ill. 584, 200 N.E. 858; People v. Dustin, 385 Ill. 68, 52 N.E.2d 224. Similarly, where claim is made that identification was induced by police sugg......
-
People v. Crenshaw
... ... Minor, 388 Ill. 436, 58 N.E.2d 21; People v. Reilly, 348 Ill. 153, 180 N.E. 805), and where an accused is not selected from a group, such fact does not render evidence of identification incompetent, but only affects its weight. People v. De. Suno, 354 Ill. 387, 188 N.E. 466; People v. Barad, 362 Ill. 584, 200 N.E. 858; People v. Dustin, 385 Ill. 68, 52 N.E.2d 224. Similarly, where claim is made that identification was induced by police suggestion that the guilty party is in custody, we have stated such procedure does not completely destroy the evidence of identification, but affects ... ...
-
State v. Lanegan
...a false appearance of spontaneous and unaided selection.' 3 Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., § 786, subd. (4). See also People v. Barad, 362 Ill. 584, 200 N.E. 858, 860; People v. Vaughn, 390 Ill. 360, 61 N.E.2d 546, A witness who was acquainted with the accused, and who had seen him at about ......
-
People v. Vaughn, 28334.
... ... People v. Minor, 388 Ill. 436, 58 N.E.2d 21;People v. Barad, 362 Ill. 584, 200 N.E. 858. The testimony of one witness as to identification, if positive and the witness credible, is sufficient to convict even though the testimony is contradicted by the accused. People v. Minor, 388 Ill. 436, 58 N.E.2d 21;People v. Eckman, 380 Ill. 413, 44 N.E.2d 60;People v ... ...