People v. Burger
| Decision Date | 08 October 1913 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BURGER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; M. L. McKinley, Judge.
Lill Burger was convicted of larceny, and she brings error. Affirmed.
Frank R. Reid, of Chicago (Pringle, Reid & Terwilliger, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., of Chicago, and George P. Ramsey, of Mt. Carmel (Zach Hofheimer, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the criminal court of Cook county of the larceny of certain property of Marshall Field & Co., found by the jury to be of the value of $25, and was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary.
A number of employés of Marshall Field & Co. testified on behalf of the people to the effect that on June 11, 1912, the plaintiff in error was seen coming from the stock room on the sixth floor of the retail store of Marshall Field & Co., being the room where articles of ladies' wearing apparel were kept. Immediately thereafter it was observed that she had various articles concealed under her skirt. Observing that the articles protruded below the hem of her skirt, plaintiff in error engaged the attention of one of the saleswomen under the pretense of purchasing some article, and while pretending to adjust her garter loosened the garments which she had concealed under her clothing, allowed them to drop to the floor and then hurriedly left the building. She was arrested on the following day, and was positively identified as the person who had stolen the goods. Plaintiff in error did not testify on the trial, and no evidence was offered in her behalf, so that the clear and convincing evidence of her guilt stands undisputed.
[1] The principal complaint is in reference to the admission of the testimony of Police Officer McGuire concerning a conversation he had with plaintiff in error at the police station immediately after her arrest. He testified that he asked her if she had been at Marshall Field's the day before, and she replied that she had not; that he then asked her if she had been there the Saturday previous, to which she replied she had not; that he then said to her ‘that her photograph had been identified as being in there and stealing these goods.’ To this an objection was interposed and overruled. The officer was then permitted to testify that plaintiff in error said that she had quit that, and had not been in a State street store since she was arrested at Mandel's; that he asked her, ‘Didn't the court tell you at that time to keep out of them stores?’ to which she replied that she had not done a thing since then, but had been on her good behavior; that thereupon he said to her, ‘Here is your Cleveland picture; how about that?’ to which she replied that that did not amount to anything; that he then said to her, ‘It shows you were arrested there December 10th.’ The record shows that the officer then displayed the photograph in the presence of the jury, to which action an objection was interposed, and was overruled. The officer then further detailed the conversation in which he had said to plaintiff in error that she had been convicted in Cleveland and sentenced to the workhouse, and testified that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McGuire
...Ill.2d 91, 125 N.E.2d 73; People v. Holtzman, 1 Ill.2d 562, 116 N.E.2d 338; People v. Novick, 265 Ill. 436, 107 N.E. 138; People v. Burger, 259 Ill. 284, 102 N.E. 751.) Parol evidence has been considered insufficient, however, when an objection was raised, and the exception for evidene rece......
-
People v. Munday
...applied in People v. McCann, 247 Ill. 130, 93 N. E. 100,20 Ann. Cas. 496,People v. Cleminson, 250 Ill. 135, 95 N. E. 157,People v. Burger, 259 Ill. 284, 102 N. E. 751, and People v. Strosnider, 264 Ill. 434, 106 N. E. 229, to sustain the judgment. The rule applied in those cases has never b......
-
People v. Lloyd
...serious error in his rulings on the admission or rejection of evidence. People v. Cleminson, 250 Ill. 135, 95 N. E. 157;People v. Burger, 259 Ill. 284, 102 N. E. 751;People v. Jasiecki, 301 Ill. 23, 133 N. E. 281. No serious error occurred in the rulings of the court on this trial. As a who......
-
Argeros v. State
... ... S. U. S. and was not proof that ... the corporation described in the information was a de jure or ... a de facto corporation; (Tollifson v. People, 112 P ... 794-796; State v. Winder, 46 A. 1046; Webb v ... State, 131 P. 970; People v. Berger, 102 N.E ... 751;) the objections to the ... ...