People v. Brown

Decision Date14 April 1966
Docket NumberNo. 65--120,65--120
Citation215 N.E.2d 812,69 Ill.App.2d 212
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. John Mack BROWN, Plaintiff in Error.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

John T. Perry, Wheaton, for plaintiff in error.

William V. Hopf, State's Atty., Edward Van de Houten, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., Wheaton, for defendant in error.

DAVIS, Justice.

The defendant, John Mack Brown, and George Adams were indicted by the grand jury of DuPage County and were charged in three counts, with burglary and larceny. The defendant was tried by a jury, found guilty of burglary, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for five to ten years. He hereby seeks to reverse this judgment and sentence.

The defendant, who was destitute and had known George Adams a short while, spent the night of March 11, 1960, with Adams at his home in Chicago. On Saturday morning, March 12, 1960, they walked Mrs. Adams and her baby to the bus station from whence she and the baby departed to visit relatives. Adams and the defendant then stopped at State and Harrison Streets where Adams sold $14 worth of vouchers for $4, and gave $2 to the defendant. From this point, the testimony of the defendant and Adams conflicts, and a re sume of each version will be recited.

The defendant testified that he and Adams ate at the Ritz Hotel at about 2:30 p.m., then went to an employment agency on South Dearborn Street; that it was closed, but the janitor of the building admitted them into the bathroom where they drank some wine until requested to leave; that Adams borrowed a car and driver's license from his cousin, Joe Smith, for the purpose of going to Harper's on Kedzie Avenue and 15th Street to get some coal out of an apartment house; that the defendant and Adams then went to a bar and had more to drink; that the defendant then told Adams that he would meet him at Harper's at about 8:00 p.m.; and that the defendant went to the south side by bus and then came back to Harper's.

He further testified that he met Adams at a nearby bar about 8:00 p.m.; that Adams asked him to go for a drive; that when he got into the car he observed some boxes; that after driving awhile, they were stopped by a motorcycle police officer who asked them to pull over to the curb for failure to have a vehicle sticker; that when the police officer directed them to pull over, the defendant told Adams, 'I ain't in this mess,' got out of the car and walked away; and that the defendant was apprehended on Wednesday, March 16, 1960, at the parking lot where Joe Smith worked.

Adams testified that he and the defendant borrowed a car from his cousin, Joe Smith, at about 3:00 p.m.; that instead of getting coal, they went to a bar, bought some wine and drank in the car; that he was unemployed and told the defendant that he was going to Addison to find a factory where he had formerly been employed; that they arrived in Addison about 4:00 p.m. and failed to find the factory; and that they then drove around looking for work, but without stopping to make any inquiries concerning a job.

Adams further testified that he drove into a school yard and the defendant got out to look for a janitor to get the address of a restaurant where they could possibly get a week-end job; that the defendant could find no one and then entered the school house and started carrying out articles which he placed in the trunk and back seat of the car; that they then drove back to Chicago where they were stopped by a motorcycle police officer; that the defendant got out of the car and walked away as Adams pulled to the curb; that Adams was directed to follow the officer to the police station, but instead, evaded the officer and went to Joe Smith's house and related the incident to him; that Smith asked Adams to go to the police station with him, and that they were apprehended while en route to the station.

There is no controversy over the fact that the school house in Addison was burglarized; that numerous items--including three typewriters, a duplicating machine and a projector--of the approximate value of $2,000, were taken, carried away, identified, and later recovered in the Joe Smith car. Adams, an accomplice, testified that the defendant entered the school house, took the items in question from the school and placed them in the car. The defendant denied any connection with the crime and contended that his only knowledge of the stolen property was that he observed it when he entered the car about 8:00 p.m.

The issues in controversy are whether it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant participated in the crime charged in the indictment; whether the trial Court erred in admitting in evidence certified copies of the record of the defendant's prior convictions of infamous crimes; and whether the Court erred in giving People's instruction 16, which reads:

'The court instructs you that, where a larceny of goods and chattels is committed, at the time and place a burglary was committed, the possession by any person of such stolen goods and chattels shortly after the crime was committed tends to prove that the property was stolen by the person in whose possession it was found, and also prima facie evidence of a participation in the burglary as well as in the larceny. Those facts themselves, if you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, they are the facts, will authorize a verdict of guilty of burglary unless the evidence in the case or the surrounding circumstances are such as to raise a reasonable doubt of such guilt.'

The jury indicated by its verdict that it was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt by the testimony of the accomplice, Adams, as corroborated by other witnesses and exhibits, that the defendant was guilty. It was only on the issue of participation in the crime that Adams' testimony was without direct corroboration of other witnesses, and was denied by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Hawthorne
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1967
    ...cannot be sustained.' It should be noted that the Illinois statute is substantially the same as ours. See also, People v. Brown, 69 Ill.App.2d 212, 215 N.E.2d 812 (App.Ct.1966). Despite the many cases in our reports sustaining the cross-examination of a witness or a defendant in a criminal ......
  • People v. Wallace
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 11, 1981
    ...with all the other evidence as tending to prove guilt. (People v. Perkins (1973), 12 Ill.App.3d 5, 297 N.E.2d 15; People v. Brown (1966), 69 Ill.App.2d 212, 215 N.E.2d 812.) Likewise, defendant's mere presence at the scene of the crime would be insufficient to establish his accountability f......
  • People v. Gilmore
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 17, 1969
    ... ... Henneman, 323 Ill.App. 124, 54 N.E.2d 745, and State v. Hawthorne, 90 N.J.Super. 545, 218 A.2d 430, where the courts disallowed the introduction of prior convictions as being too remote. (Ten years in Henneman and twenty years in Hawthorne.) In People v. Brown, 69 Ill.App.2d 212, 218, 215 N.E.2d 812, 815, the court discussed this same argument: ... The defendant also argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior convictions of infamous crimes because they were too remote in point of time. In support of this contention he cites ... ...
  • People v. Spears
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 27, 1967
    ... ... Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 38, Par. 155--1. This is the voice of the Legislature. This is one of the terms upon which the common law disqualification was removed. In People v. Brown, 69 Ill.App.2d 212, 215 N.E.2d 812, the court cites People v. Buford, 396 Ill. 158, 71 N.E.2d 340, with approval. In the case, the previous conviction was fifteen years old and the defendant urged that it was too remote to possibly affect the credibility of the defendant in that case. The Supreme ... ...
  • 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