People v. Clark
| Decision Date | 26 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 37571,37571 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. James Massie CLARK, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Joel J. Sprayregen, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
James Massie Clark, the defendant, was tried in the criminal court of Cook County and found guilty under an indictment wherein he was charged, jointly with William Byrd and Jessie Knox, with the crime of robbery. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of two to five years and now prosecutes this writ of error contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, that the indictment was defective, and that he was not present at the arraignment, in violation of his right to be in attendance at all phases of his trial. Defendant's presentation here concedes that Byrd committed a robbery, and it is his theory under the evidence that he was an innocent bystander who did not participate in the crime, but in fact intervened to prevent further assault on the robbery victim.
The evidence on behalf of the People shows that Nicholas Unterreiner, the complaining witness, was fifty-nine years old, had resided in this country less than five years, and spoke German and Yrgoslavian but very little English. Testifying through an interpreter, he stated that as he was walking home from work at approximately 12:30 A.M. on June 17, 1961, he noticed four men who first walked behind him, and then passed him. As he neared an elevated railroad structure one of the men asked him a question, which he did not understand, then grabbed him by the hand and pulled him underneath the elevated structure. There, according to the witness, the men beat him about the head and kicked him after he had fallen down, inflicting severe lacerations and bruises. He called for help, became dazed and, it is to be gathered from his testimony, was unaware that a wallet and some keys were missing from his person until they were returned to him by a police officer under circumstances to be detailed. The witness could not identify his assailants, explaining that blood from cuts on his face obscured his vision.
Raymond Vahosky testified for the prosecution that he and two friends were across the street talking when he saw two men, whom he later identified as Byrd and Knox, beating and kicking Unterreiner. The defedant, he said, was standing 'in the background.' The witness and his friends ran across the street shouting, whereupon Knox and Byrd stopped the beating and ran off. However, they returned at once, Byrd becoming belligerent with Vahosky and Knox drawing a knife. At this time defendant stepped out of the shadows and stopped the altercation by telling his companions that he knew Vahosky and that the latter was a judo instructor. Meanwhile, Unterreiner was lying on the ground nearby with his coat over his head.
A Chicago police officer, Charles Levecke, passed the scene as he was driving home from duty and saw what he characterized as 'two colored boys,' whom he also identified as Byrd and Knox, fighting with a man. The officer parked his car down the street and walked back to the scene, arriving at the time the quarrel with Vahosky was being concluded. When the officer approached, Knox fled from the scene and when defendant and Byrd started to walk away the officer stopped them and told them they were under arrest for fighting. He became aware of Unterreiner's presence at about this time, noting the latter was badly cut and bleeding, and upon being told by Vahosky that the boys 'had been robbing the old man,' searched Byrd and found some keys and a wallet which Unterreiner identified as his. While the officer was putting handcuffs on Byrd, the defendant slipped through a crowd that had gathered and escaped.
Defendant was subsequently apprehended and was identified by Vahosky from a line-up of prisoners. In a statement given to the police, defendant said that he was unemployed, that he had met Byrd and Knox about 11:30 P.M. of the night in question at the former's home, and that the three of them set out for a tap room 'to get somebody to buy them a beer.' After stating that they were walking behind a man in the vicinity of Halsted Street and North Avenue, the statement continued:
Testifying at the trial, defendant denied that Knox was at first involved and stated that as he and Byrd were walking along...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Henderson
...at 191-92, 319 N.E.2d 772 (quoting People v. Richardson (1965), 32 Ill.2d 472, 477, 207 N.E.2d 478, which quoted People v. Clark (1963), 30 Ill.2d 67, 72, 195 N.E.2d 157).) Also instructive is the statute specifying that one is legally accountable for another's criminal acts if, "before or ......
-
People v. Stamps
...v. Nugara (1968), 39 Ill.2d 482, 236 N.E.2d 693, cert. denied (1968), 393 U.S. 925, 89 S.Ct. 257, 21 L.Ed.2d 261; People v. Clark (1964), 30 Ill.2d 67, 195 N.E.2d 157) and that the accused and the State are entitled to appropriate instructions which present their respective theories of the ......
-
People v. Knight
...to raise these objections by an appropriate motion in the trial court defendant must be deemed to have waived them. People v. Clark (1963), 30 Ill.2d 67, 73, 195 N.E.2d 157; People v. Barney (1959), 15 Ill.2d 503, 507, 155 N.E.2d Defendant maintains that an allegation that a defendant posse......
-
People v. Lamb
...was an active participant in the robbery attempt and not just a bystander. He is, under law, clearly accountable. People v. Clark, 30 Ill.2d 67, 195 N.E.2d 157. People v. Rybka, 16 Ill.2d 394, 158 N.E.2d The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. BURKE and HALLETT, JJ......