People v. Boney, No. 37511

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtUNDERWOOD
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Fred BONEY, Plaintiff in Error.
Decision Date27 September 1963
Docket NumberNo. 37511

Page 920

192 N.E.2d 920
28 Ill.2d 505
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error,
v.
Fred BONEY, Plaintiff in Error.
No. 37511.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Sept. 27, 1963.

[28 Ill.2d 506]

Page 921

Thomas M. Ryan, 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 Richard T. Buck, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.

UNDERWOOD, Justice.

In 1961 Fred Boney was found guilty, following a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County, of the consolidated charges of armed robbery and rape, and sentenced to concurrent imprisonment for 1-20 years for robbery and 20 years for rape. On this writ of error defendant asserts that his conviction was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and specifically contends that his alibi, coupled with the weakness of the identification by the prosecuting witnesses, establishes a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

There is no controversy as to the occurrence of the crime itself. The prosecuting witnesses, husband and wife, testified that at 4:45 A.M. on September 10, 1961, they awoke in their apartment bedroom at 155 Burton Place, Chicago, to find a 75-watt bed lamp illuminated and a masked man with a pistol standing approximately five feet from their bed. The intruder bound, gagged and blindfolded the victims, also tying the husband's feet; he ransacked the bedroom, taking money and other items, then took the wife downstairs, raped her, and left the house. [28 Ill.2d 507] The proof indicates he spoke many times during the 45-50-minute period he was in their apartment; the handkerchief mask covered only the lower portion of his face, and the wife testified it slipped down on one occasion before she was blindfolded. The husband described the intruder as a colored male of about 25 years, 5 feet 7 inches tall and 150 pounds with a brown complexion, slanting eyes, puffed nose and hair straight back, close to his head, slightly tufted around the sides. The wife's description largely corroborated that of her husband's although there was some minor variation as to the length of defendant's hair.

On September 12, Fred Boney was picked up by members of the State's Attorney's force; he was questioned and apparently at defendant's request, or with his consent, given a lie-detector test. At the trial defendant testified, over the People's objection, that the polygraph operator told the officers that the examination indicated Boney's innocence. Following his arrest he was held at the criminal court building until the complainants, who had been met and escorted to the building by a State's Attorney's investigator, arrived and identified him in a lineup consisting of the defendant and four members of the State's Attorney's force known to the complainant husband in his capacity as an investigator for the State's Attorney's office. The complainant wife testified she was not acquainted with any of the officers in the lineup. It is unclear whether complainants made their identifications separately or jointly.

The husband testified that before being blindfolded he had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 practice notes
  • United States v. Wade, No. 334
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1967
    ...9. Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Part I, supra, n. 7. 10. See Wall, supra, n. 6, at 57—59; see, e.g., People v. Boney, 28 Ill.2d 505, 192 N.E.2d 920 (1963); People v. James, 218 Cal.App.2d 166, 32 Cal.Rptr. 283 (1963). 11. See Rolph, Personal Identity 50: 'The bright burden......
  • People v. Mendoza, No. 77-1247.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 13, 1978
    ...or not at all. This is one of the reasons why minor discrepancies in identification do not require reversal. People v. Boney, 28 Ill.2d 505, 509, 192 N.E.2d 920; People v. Prochut, 27 Ill.2d 298, 300, 189 N.E.2d 290. The essentials were present in the victim's opportunity to observe, and he......
  • United States v. Ridling, Crim. A. No. 46732.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • October 6, 1972
    ...People v. York, 174 Cal.App.2d 305, 344 P.2d 811 (1959); People v. Jones, 52 Cal.2d 636, 343 P.2d 577 (1959); People v. Boney, 28 Ill.2d 505, 192 N.E.2d 920 (1963); State v. Bohner, 210 Wis. 651, 246 N.W. 314 (1933); People v. Becker, 300 Mich. 562, 2 N.W.2d 503 (1942); Hawkins v. State, 22......
  • People v. Nicholls, No. 40141
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 29, 1969
    ...introduced as evidence either of guilt or innocence of an accused. (People v. Nelson, 33 Ill.2d 48, 51, 210 N.E.2d 212; People v. Boney, 28 Ill.2d 505, 192 N.E.2d 920; People v. Zazzetta, 27 Ill.2d 302, 189 N.E.2d 260.) The trial court properly declined to admit this proposed [42 Ill.2d 98]......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
84 cases
  • United States v. Wade, No. 334
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1967
    ...9. Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Part I, supra, n. 7. 10. See Wall, supra, n. 6, at 57—59; see, e.g., People v. Boney, 28 Ill.2d 505, 192 N.E.2d 920 (1963); People v. James, 218 Cal.App.2d 166, 32 Cal.Rptr. 283 (1963). 11. See Rolph, Personal Identity 50: 'The bright burden......
  • People v. Mendoza, No. 77-1247.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 13, 1978
    ...or not at all. This is one of the reasons why minor discrepancies in identification do not require reversal. People v. Boney, 28 Ill.2d 505, 509, 192 N.E.2d 920; People v. Prochut, 27 Ill.2d 298, 300, 189 N.E.2d 290. The essentials were present in the victim's opportunity to observe, and he......
  • United States v. Ridling, Crim. A. No. 46732.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • October 6, 1972
    ...People v. York, 174 Cal.App.2d 305, 344 P.2d 811 (1959); People v. Jones, 52 Cal.2d 636, 343 P.2d 577 (1959); People v. Boney, 28 Ill.2d 505, 192 N.E.2d 920 (1963); State v. Bohner, 210 Wis. 651, 246 N.W. 314 (1933); People v. Becker, 300 Mich. 562, 2 N.W.2d 503 (1942); Hawkins v. State, 22......
  • People v. Nicholls, No. 40141
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 29, 1969
    ...introduced as evidence either of guilt or innocence of an accused. (People v. Nelson, 33 Ill.2d 48, 51, 210 N.E.2d 212; People v. Boney, 28 Ill.2d 505, 192 N.E.2d 920; People v. Zazzetta, 27 Ill.2d 302, 189 N.E.2d 260.) The trial court properly declined to admit this proposed [42 Ill.2d 98]......
  • 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