People v. Coli
| Decision Date | 20 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 32968,32968 |
| Citation | 117 N.E.2d 777,2 Ill.2d 186 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. COLI. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Charles A. Bellows, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and John Gutknecht, State's Atty., Chicago (John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, Arthur F. Manning and Joseph Wosik, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
After a trial by jury in the criminal court of Cook County the defendant, Eco James Coli, was found guilty of armed robbery, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term not less than eight years nor more than twelve. He seeks review by writ of error, contending that the evidence of identification is insufficient and that prejudicial remarks of the trial judge deprived him of a fair trial.
The record discloses that on June 7, 1950, at about 7:00 A. M. three men robbed the Olympia Fields Country Club of twelve slot machines. One of the men, armed with a revolver, herded the custodian and about a dozen other persons present on the premises into the women's locker room in the clubhouse, where they were compelled to remain for about an hour. While his companions removed the slot machines, the man with the gun paced back and forth across the entrance to the locker room.
At the trial on October 15, 1952, three of the persons present identified the defendant as the one who thus held them captive. William Stout, the custodian, and Ella M. Eck, a member of the club present at the time, testified they did not call the police or give any description of the man until January, 1951, when they went to the police station and were told that they were to view the defendant. Each then identified defendant, who was shown to them alone, as the person who committed the offense. John W. Bishop, a member of the club and a practicing attorney, testified that the first time he saw defendant after the date of the robbery was a few days prior to the trial, when he observed him in the hall outside the courtroom. He further testified that the man 'had a peculiar way of walking-a springy step,' and that when he saw defendant in the hall the latter 'still had a spring in his step.' Each of the three witnesses testified they were in the presence of the man with the revolver for about an hour on the date of the offense, and at the trial each identified defendant as that man. Defendant testified that early on the morning of June 7 he was with the woman who since became his wife, and the latter testified that at the time of the offense she was with defendant in a downtown coffee shop.
Defendant insists that the circumstances of the identifications render them unreliable and insufficient to satisfy the rule requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is argued that the failure of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...not influence the jury, either directly or indirectly. (People v. Finn (1959), 17 Ill.2d 614, 617, 162 N.E.2d 354; People v. Coli (1954), 2 Ill.2d 186, 189, 117 N.E.2d 777; Marzen v. People (1898), 173 Ill. 43, 57-59, 50 N.E. 249.) We note that at the conclusion of the first phase of senten......
-
People v. Rodgers
...many photographs would support the premise that he had a very clear mental picture as to how his assailant looked. In People v. Coli, 2 Ill.2d 186, 117 N.E.2d 777 (1954), the Court said that lapse of time affects only the weight to be given the identification and does not make the identific......
-
People v. Wax
...witness had testified. Such was not done for any practical purpose. People v. Morris, 30 Ill.2d 406, 197 N.E.2d 433, and People v. Coli, 2 Ill.2d 186, 117 N.E.2d 777, are cited for the rule that the defendant has the right of cross-examination as to any manner explaining or discrediting tha......
-
People v. Rosenborgh
...27 Ill.2d 311, 189 N.E.2d 265.) Furthermore, although a judge must permit defense counsel to cross-examine witnesses (People v. Coli, 2 Ill.2d 186, 117 N.E.2d 777.) and to make objections (People v. Lawerenz, 24 Ill.2d 295, 181 N.E.2d 99.) he must also expedite the proceedings. People v. Mc......