People v. Caruso
| Decision Date | 17 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 20047.,20047. |
| Citation | 339 Ill. 258,171 N.E. 128 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CARUSO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Winnebago County; Arthur E. Fisher, Judge.
Sam Caruso and another were convicted of larceny from the person, and named defendant brings error.
Affirmed.John R. Sniveley and North, Linscott, Gibboney, North & Dixon, all of Rockford, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., William D. Knight, State's Atty., of Rockford, and Joel C. Fitch, of Albion (Alfred B. Louison, of Rockford, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Sam Caruso, and Frank Nicholson, were indicted jointly at the April term, 1929, of the circuit court of Winnebago county for the crime of larceny from the person. The case was tried at the October term and resulted in the conviction of both defendants. Plaintiff in error prosecutes this writ of error to review the judgment entered on the verdict.
The crime for which plaintiff in error was convicted was committed at the northwest corner of the intersection of State and Main streets, in the city of Rockford. Edward Ring, a police officer, was standing across the street from the corner in question and observed Caruso and Nicholson loitering about the corner of the intersection where the busses stopped. Many people were waiting there. Ring observed Caruso force himself among the people and saw him and Nicholson pushing and feeling the back pockets of people who were boarding the various busses and lifting up the coat tails of some of the men. Upon the departure of each bus Caruso and Nicholson walked back to a place near the store building located on the corner, where they were joined by a third person. The three men in each instance talked and laughed for a few minutes and the third person left. After the arrival of the fourth bus Ring crossed the street to the corner where Caruso and Nicholson were standing and placed them under arrest. He then took them to the police station and searched them. In Caruso's pockets was found a purse containing a dollar bill, 49 cents in change, and two keys. Ring further testified that on the way to the police station Caruso was trying to put his hands in his pockets; that upon their arrival at the station Caruso wanted to go to the toilet, but witness refused to allow him until he had been searched; that Nicholson told the witness he had better let Caruso go, because he had a bad disease and could not hold his urine; and that after Caruso had been searched no further request was made by him.
Hazel Nelson testified that she was on one of the busses that stopped at the corner of State and Main streets; that she saw the complaining witness, Gust Lindman, get on the bus at that corner; that Caruso was near the entrance to the bus and was leaning against it; that Nicholson was immediately behind Lindman and she saw him push Lindman's coat up with a newspaper, reach into Lindman's pocket, quickly remove both hands, and step off of the bus and stand facing Caruso; that she reported the matter to the police by phone as soon as she arrived at her home. Later, at the police station, she identified Caruso and Nicholson as being the two men she had seen by the bus.
Lindman testified that he missed his purse soon after he arrived at his home and reported the loss to the police. He identified the purse and the keys found in Caruso's pocket as being his property and testified that the purse contained a dollar bill and some dimes and pennies at the time it was stolen. He testified that the smaller of the two keys was the key to a handgrip and the larger was the key to his writing desk. It was found that the smaller key locked and unlocked the grip and the larger one the door of the desk.
Nicholson took the stand in his own behalf and denied having participated in the larceny. He also denied knowing Caruso.
Caruso testified that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Komorowski v. Boston Store of Chicago
...319 Ill. 359, 150 N. E. 263;People v. Sealisi, 324 Ill. 131, 154 N. E. 715;People v. Hord, 329 Ill. 117, 160 N. E. 135;People v. Caruso, 339 Ill. 258, 171 N. E. 128. As was said in Linck v. City of Litchfield, 141 Ill. 469, 31 N. E. 123, 125: ‘If, then, the question were originally a doubtf......
-
People v. One Pinball Mach.
...that where an offense is committed in the presence of an officer, he has authority to make an arrest without a warrant. People v. Caruso, 339 Ill. 258, 171 N.E. 128. If the right of arrest exists, the right of search and seizure is incidental thereto. People v. Davies, 354 Ill. 168, 188 N.E......
-
Weis v. Allman
...that where an offense is committed in the presence of an officer, he has authority to make an arrest without a warrant. People v. Caruso, 339 Ill. 258, 171 N.E. 128. If the right of arrest exists, the right of search and seizure is incidental thereto. People v. Davies, 354 Ill. 168, 188 N.E......
-
People v. Harding
...or who has reasonable ground for believing that the person arrested was implicated in the commission of a crime. (People v. Caruso, 339 Ill. 258, 171 N.E. 128; People v. Swift, 319 Ill. 359, 150 N.E. 263; Lynn v. People, 170 Ill. 527, 48 N.E. 964; North v. People, 139 Ill. 81, 28 N.E. 966),......