People v. Cassell
| Citation | 243 N.E.2d 363,101 Ill.App.2d 279 |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | Gen. Nos. 52771-52773 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cordell J. CASSELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Wilson & Garnett, by Kenneth E. Wilson, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
John J. Stamos, State's Attorney, County of Cook, Chicago, Elmer C. Kissane and James R. Kavanaugh, Asst. State's Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant appeals his conviction, after a bench trial, of the crimes of deceptive practices (Case No. 52773), unlawful use of a weapon (Case No. 52772) and resisting arrest (Case No. 52271). 1 He received concurrent one-year sentences in the County Jail for each of the first two crimes, and was fined $100 for violation of the resisting arrest ordinance. On appeal he contends that he was prejudiced by the court's failure to exclude certain evidence and that his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. We will discuss defendant's contentions as they apply to each individual case.
Case No. 52773--Deceptive Practices
Mary Kovacit testified that she was a cashier in the Polk Brothers Store at 8530 South Cottage Grove Avenue on April 10, 1967; that defendant and a Mr. Wiseman were together in the store some time after 9:00 P.M. buying records; that it was 'close to closing'; that Wiseman gave her the credit card (introduced as People's exhibit 1) and signed the bill; and that while she was marking down the records they had purchased, defendant inquired about the price of a can of cleaner and requested that it be added to the bill.
Jacob Loefflel testified that he was an investigator for Continental Illinois Bank; that the credit card which had been marked as Exhibit 1 was owned by the Continental Illinois Bank; that it had been issued to one Thomas Harland; that it was turned in by Harland and returned to the bank on April 7 (three days before it was presented to Mary Kovacit at Polk Brothers); that he did not know what happened to the credit card; and that he saw it at the Kensington Police Station after he had been called by the police.
Police Officer George Howard testified that he and his partner, Officer Charles Arrington, observed three men sitting in an automobile parked in front of the Polk Brothers Store at about 9:00 P.M. on the day in question; that after he and Arrington had been watching about ten minutes, two men (later identified as defendant and Wiseman) got out of the car and went into the store; that neither he nor Arrington was wearing a uniform, nor was their car marked; that he and Arrington waited another ten or fifteen minutes and then approached the car. He said that Maurice Cassell was sitting alone in the car, that he observed that the back seat was loaded with groceries and other merchandise, and that he was told by Maurice Cassell that he had come with his brother who was in the store buying furniture. Howard testified that he saw defendant and Wiseman purchase merchandise with a credit card, that there had been a problem with the illegal use of credit cards in the district, and that the car had contained groceries from the only grocery store honoring credit cards. He stated that he asked them about the credit card; that Wiseman admitted the illegal use of the credit card; that defendant admitted coming to the store with Wiseman; that defendant asked, 'How did you get wise to us?'; and that he then advised defendant and Wiseman that they were under arrest.
Officer Charles Arrington testified that his testimony would be substantially the same as that of Officer Howard and added that he spoke to the cashier with whom Wiseman and Cassell had dealt to find out if a credit card had been used.
Defendant testified that he did not know Wiseman had a credit card not belonging to him; that he considered the records purchased Wiseman's; that Wiseman paid for the records and that he had purchased nothing that day.
Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of deceptive practices. 2 He argues that the prosecution failed to establish his complicity in the unlawful use of the credit card because there was no evidence showing that he was either connected with the purchases or that he knew of the credit card's illegality. However, there was evidence that defendant was with Wiseman, that he selected a can of cleaner and had it added to the bill, and that he asked the police, 'How did you get wise to us?' Under these circumstances we are unable to disturb the conclusion of the trier of fact that defendant participated in the illegal use of the credit card.
Defendant also contends that the credit card should have been suppressed because it was taken from Wiseman in an illegal search and seizure. However, at the trial defendant made no objection to the admissibility of the card on that ground and made no motion to suppress this evidence. His failure to do so prevents consideration of this argument. People v. King, 26 Ill.2d 586, 188 N.E.2d 11.
The judgment in Case No. 52773 is affirmed.
Case No. 52772--Unlawful Use of a Weapon
Defendant first contends that the tear gas pencil introduced in evidence as State's Exhibit 2 was the product of an illegal search and seizure and that his motion to suppress it should have been sustained. Defendant's testimony was the sole evidence submitted on the motion to suppress. He testified that at the time and place in question he was merely browsing about the record department; that he had inquired about a defective needle he had previously bought in the store; that a police officer, after stopping defendant and identifying himself, asked him about a credit card; and that the police officer showed no warrant. He said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Turner
...673. Similarly in People v. Glanton, supra, this court cited Braden and commented upon the inapplicability of People v. Cassell,101 Ill.App.2d 279, 283, 243 N.E.2d 363 upon which defendant here relies. Examination of all of the evidence in the record in the case before us shows that there w......
-
People v. Tilden
...grounds for the initial seizure once the defendant had made a prima facie case that the seizure was unlawful. (People v. Cassell, 101 Ill.App.2d 279, 243 N.E.2d 363; People v. Ezell, 61 Ill.App.2d 326, 210 N.E.2d 331. (Abstract)) But here that was not done. The only two witnesses at the hea......
-
People v. Glanton
...arrest) was not prejudicial to the defendant and did not constitute reversible error. We note here that People v. Cassell (1968), 101 Ill.App.2d 279, 284, 243 N.E.2d 363, 366, indicates that, where the State, at the hearing on a motion to suppress certain physical evidence, failed to sustai......
-
People v. Riszowski
...lacked probable cause, the burden of going forward shifts to the State to negate that evidence at the hearing. People v. Cassell (1968), 101 Ill.App.2d 279, 243 N.E.2d 363; People v. Williams (1973), 16 Ill.App.3d 440, 306 N.E.2d 678; People v. King (1973), 12 Ill.App.3d 355, 298 N.E.2d 715......