People v. Cope

• Decision Date: 23 October 1931
• Docket Number: No. 20627.,20627.
• Citation: 178 N.E. 95,345 Ill. 278
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. COPE.

345 Ill. 278

178 N.E. 95

PEOPLE

v.COPE.

No. 20627.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 23, 1931.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; William N. Gemmill, Judge.

Kenneth Cope was convicted of larceny, and he brings error.

Reversed and remanded.John J. Byrne, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

DUNN, J.

By this writ of error we are called upon to review the record of the conviction of Kenneth Cope in the criminal court of Cook county of the crime of larceny. The brief and argument of the plaintiff in error question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the admission in evidence of an alleged confession of the defendant, and the fairness of his trial. The record of a previous trial of the case was reviewed in People v. Cope, 335 Ill. 466, 166 N. E. 925.

Earl F. Carson left his automobile parked on South Halsted street, in Chicago, about 8:30 in the evening of February 24, 1928. On his return about three hours later it was gone. He reported these facts to the police, and he next saw his car about 10:30 the next morning at the Meacham Brick Company's yards on Seventy-Sixth street, five or six blocks from where he had left it. It was stripped and the five tires which had been on it and other accessories were gone. In the forenoon of February 27 the plaintiff in error and Michael Scanlan, who was indicted with him were arrested in the building at the northeast corner of Seventy-Ninth and Aberdeen streets, and the five tires, together with other accessories, were found in the small basement room in which the men had been sleeping on blankets and quilts; there being no bed in the room.

At the trial, a statement in writing, consisting of questions and answers, signed by the defendant, was produced by the prosecution. The defendant objected to its introduction in evidence on the ground that he was beaten and threats of violence were made against him, and that he denied making certain parts of it. Thereupon, out of the presence of the jury, the court heard the evidence of the defendant and Officers Coen and Kelly on these objections. Cope testified that the signature to the statement was his, and he signed it at the Gresham police station. Officers Coen and Kelly were there, and no other person. They asked him where he lived and where he worked, and he gave them all the information as to where he worked, and, so far as he knew, that was all he did tell them. Michael Grady, the chief of detectives, was the one who beat him up, and he had bruises all over his shins and body. He was in the captain's office at the Gresham police station. He did not see Coen and Kelly there. He believed, though, Coen was there, but he did not see Kelly. The desk sergeant was there, but Cope did not know his name, and he did not touch Cope. Grady hit him and kicked him on the shins and made him bend down and then hit him on the back. This was the very morning he was brought in there, and he did it because Cope would not say anything. He wanted Cope to admit he had murdered a man, but he did not admit anything, and did not tell anything about the car in this case. The morning he was brought in Grady began to strike him and wanted to know what he was doing running away from the place where Officer Lillis was murdered. Grady did not beat him any more after that morning. The next day Grady brought him up stairs and wanted him to tell something about the other lads, but he knew nothing about them, and nobody beat him after the first morning he was brought in. These two officers were present, but did not threaten to beat him. There was one other detective there who beat him a couple of times with his fists because he wanted him to say he took the car and wanted to know how many cars he took. On cross-examination by his counsel Cope testified that Grady was the first man who beat him at the station; that he put Cope down on a chair and asked him if he was going to talk, and, when Cope said he had nothing to say, Grady kicked him on the shins, bent him back by the neck, got up and hit him on the stomach, and hit him with a black-jack on his knees and legs. This lasted about half an hour. He was brought out of the cell several times, and was threatened and beaten. Then he said, in response to a question by the court, the day Grady beat him was the morning of February 27, and he was not beaten after that. Officers Coen and Kelly testified, the former denying specifically all the statements made by Cope in his testimony regarding any violence used upon him, and Kelly stating that he typed the questions and answers contained in Cope's statement, which was taken on February 29, soon after midnight. Officer Coen asked the questions, the statement was reduced to writing by Kelly, and Cope read it and signed it. The court overruled the objection to the statement, except as to certain parts of it, and it was read to the jury, omitting those parts referring to other offenses which the court held incompetent, which were indicated on the writing by pencil marks. The parts of the confession considered competent were read to the jury.

The statement purported on its face to have been taken about 4 a. m., February 29, 1928, by Officer Kelly, questions asked by Thomas W. Coen, Officer John J. Mulree present. It contained this question asked by Coen early in the examination: ‘It is my duty to inform you that any answer you may make to questions asked of you here may be used for or against you in court. Now, being so warned, do you still want to make a statement?’ The answer was, ‘Yes.’ The statement continued, in substance, that the car in question was taken from the rear of Schubert's department store on Friday night, February 24, 1928, by the plaintiff in error and Don Tealing, who drove it around on the South Side boulevards until about 11:30, when the plaintiff in error went to a pool room where he had been, earlier in the evening and there met Michael Scanlan, who asked him what he was doing. Cope told him he had a stolen car which he had just left at Meacham's brickyard. Scanlan asked him if the tires were any good, and Cope said he did not look. The two went to the car and removed the tires, tubes, and rims from the wheels, and left them beside the railroad tracks. They then went back to Seventy-Ninth and Halsted streets, where Scanlan met a Yellow cab driver, with whom they returned to the brickyard, put the tires in the cab, and carried them into the basement where Cope was arrested. He slept in the basement that night and other nights until he was arrested.

Grady did not testify in the preliminary hearing by the court, in the absence of the jury, in regard to the voluntary character of the confession and the violence and abuse exercised by him against the prisoner prior to his making and signing the confession offered in evidence. The court adopted the unusual course of himself conducting the examination of the two officers who took the statement, and of the defendant. When the confession was objected to for the reasons stated, the court said, ‘The police officers are here who obtained the confession and I will question them as to what took place,’ and he did so. Each testified in response to the questions that the defendant was not struck, beaten, or mistreated in any way in his presence, and that he saw no bruises on the defendant, and heard no complaint from him of mistreatment. The court also questioned the defendant at some length about the confession as well as other subjects. Cope testified that Coen did not threaten him, but before the confession he had been beaten by Grady, but Grady was not called. The defendant's counsel, after the court had finished his questioning, asked a few questions of the defendant, eliciting answers that the same day Grady beat him he was taken up stairs to the sergeant's room, and the desk sergeant, whose name he did not know, hit him a couple of times. The desk sergeant was not called, but the court remarked, ‘Now, if you want to commit perjury here I can punish you for that; there is nothing in this; it is the same old defense.’ The defendant'scounsel stated that he would like to ask him if he was beaten at any other time before he made the confession, but the court said, ‘He has told us all he can about that; now, do not put anything into his mouth or you might be an accessory after the fact.’ Counsel replied, ‘I am not afraid of anything; I am trying to do my duty here as I see it,’ and the court said, ‘He has told us all about it.’

The overruling of the objection to...