People v. Beacham

• Decision Date: 13 December 1934
• Docket Number: No. 22580.,22580.
• Citation: 358 Ill. 373,193 N.E. 205
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BEACHAM.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

358 Ill. 373

193 N.E. 205

PEOPLE

v.BEACHAM.

No. 22580.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1934.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Dec. 13, 1934.

Error to Circuit Court, Sangamon County; Lawrence E. Stone, Judge.

Randolph Beacham was convicted of violating section 229 of the Criminal Code (Smith-Hurd Ann. St. c. 38, § 229), and he brings error.

Affirmed.

A. M. Fitzgerald and H. C. Moore, both of Springfield, for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., and A. H. Greening, State's Atty., J. J. Neiger, and Thomas W. Hoopes, all of Springfield, for the People.

ORR, Justice.

By this writ of error to the circuit court of Sangamon county the defendant, Randolph Beacham, seeks reversal of a judgment based upon the verdict of a jury finding him guilty of violating section 229, c. 38, Smith-Hurd Ann. St. (Cr. Code). He was indicted and tried for procuring an explosive compound with intent to use it for the unlawful injury or destruction of life and property.

At about 2:45 o'clock in the morning of November 6, 1933, defendant was arrested as he came out of an alley in the rear of the C. I. P. S. building, in Springfield. The officer who made the arrest believed he might be a ‘firebug’ for whom the authorities were looking. When arrested he was carrying a fused bomb made from a syrup can. At this time he said he was without work and was a coal miner who had worked at various times in Detroit. The Peabody Coal Company, an owner and operator of coal mines in the Springfield territory, had an office in the C. I. P. S. building. All of the miners employed by the company were members of the United Mine Workers of America. A rival organization, the Progressive Miners, wanted to place its members upon the pay roll of the company. A struggle ensued which has led to violence and bombing.

Charles Walker, a police officer, testified that he saw defendant about 2 o'clock in the morning of November 6; that he answered, in a way, the description of a person wanted for arson; that he followed defendant and saw him enter an alley in the rear of the C. I. P. S. building; and that he intercepted him after he came out of the alley and placed him under arrest and searched him. An old newspaper was wrapped around the bomb and a clipping from a Peoria paper. Defendant told Walker that he had found the bomb in the alley and intended to turn it over to the authorities and claim a purported reward of $100. Walker was under the uncertain impression that defendant was carrying a bundle when he first saw him. A merchant policeman testified that he saw defendant carrying a newspaper-wrapped bundle at 12:50 a. m. The state produced no direct testimony to show that defendant intended to use the bomb for an unlawful purpose.

Defendant testified that before coming to Springfield he had been in Detroit and Peoria. He had been in Springfield two days, seeking work. The first night he slept in a box car and the second night on the floor in the headquarters of the Progressive organization. He said that on the night of his arrest he had started out on a drinking bout with a companion whom he called ‘Lefty.’ Some of the funds for the purchase of whisky were obtained by the two begging on the streets. Defendant said the whisky was bought in half-pint bottles, which they would secrete in the alley. The two became separated and defendant drank a couple or more half pints without assistance. He said he wanted more whisky, so he went down the alley looking for the hidden liquor. He reached down beside a telephone pole back of the C. I. P. S. building, where he said he found a package wrapped in a newspaper. He carried his find to the street and after an examination he surmised he might have a bomb. He said he desired to make sure, so he started towards some railroad tracks and was arrested by Walker. He admitted that he had been sent to prison in Michigan on account of trouble in Detroit. The people introduced testimony to show that when defendant was arrested and brought to the station he was sober, did not smell of liquor, and did not show indications of being under its influence. Examination of the testimony of defendant shows that he and his companion consumed a half pint of liquor which, according to him, had been secreted in the alley, together with an additional pint. No more whisky was hidden in the alley, for he said his companion then left with 15 cents given to him by defendant to get another pint and did not return. The story of defendant is conflicting, lacks plausibility, and is a weak tale of confession and avoidance.

It is principally argued that it was necessary for the people to show statements or declarations of defendant that he possessed the bomb with intent to use it in a manner calculated to injure or destroy life or property. Hronek v. People, 134 Ill. 139, 24 N. E. 861,8 L. R. A. 837,...