People v. Courtney
| Citation | 307 Ill. 441,138 N.E. 857 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 14894.,14894. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. COURTNEY. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Harry B. Miller, Judge.
Edward, Courtney was convicted of attempted burglary, and brings error.
Affirmed.
Charles Waldman and W. W. O'Brien, both of Chicago (Thomas E. Swanson, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Clyde Fisher, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Edward Courtney, was indicted, tried, and convicted in the criminal court of Cook county jointly with James McDonough, for the crime of attempted burglary and was sentenced to the penitentiary. This writ of error was sued out by Courtney for a review of the record.
On April, 6, 1921, Patrick Flannigan, who was the proprietor of a soft drink parlor at No. 3700 Cottage Grove avenue, in Chicago, was informed that an attempt would be made to burglarize his place of business that night. He notified the police, and Sergeants Lavin, Hogan, and Nolan and Officer Denman went to the place after midnight, and remained until Flannigan turned out the lights and closed his place of business, at 1 o'clock. Nolan and Lavin were stationed inside, at the back door. Hogan and Denman stationed themselves on the inside at the front door. The building is located on the southwestcorner of Thirty-Seventh, street and Cottage Grove avenue. It has 20 feet of windows on Cottage Grove avenue and 15 feet of windows off from Cottage Grove avenue, extending west on Thirty-Seventh street. The entrance is exactly on the corner of Thirty-Seventh street and Cottage Grove avenue. It also has a side entrance on Thirty-Seventh street, 35 feet west of Cottage Grove avenue, and also a rear entrance about 4 feet wide near the center of the building. The rear entrance cannot be seen from either Thirty-Seventh street or Cottage Grove avenue. There is a passageway from Thirty-Seventh street to the rear entrance. Three of the officers, Denman, Nolan, and Lavin, testified on the trial. The substance of Denman's testimony, who was at the front of the building, is the following:
It was dark on the inside, but he had a clear vision from the inside out; an electric light being directly across the street. About 50 minutes after the saloon closed, an automobile drove up, and he saw plaintiff in error walk over to it and hold a conversation with its occupants. The automobile then pulled out of his line of vision, and plaintiff in error started traveling up and down Thirty-Seventh street from Cottage Grove avenue, and made the trip at least three times. He would walk west on the same side as the building and out of the witness sight, then would walk back east again, and look around the corner, and stand around there awhile. A police officer on the outside came there to pull the box, and Courtney immediately turned and walked west and stood out of sight, while the officer, after pulling the box, conversed for a couple of minutes with another officer who came up. After the officers left, Courtney came back on his beat. Nolan then came from the back of the room and informed the witness that they were working on the back door. The witness heard the noise of working on the back door-hammering, squeaking, and sliding of metal over metal. Hogan, Nolan, and the witness than went out of the side door, and as they came out Courtney passed them, and the witness said, Nolan grabbed Courtney, and then they noticed somebody at the rear passageway entrance, and they ran to it and began shooting. The witness ran into the passageway, but could not see anybody in it, and then went down in the basement, which was dark. On using his flashlight he discovered McDonough up in one corner behind a pair of steps, and ordered him to throw up his hands and come out, or he would kill him. McDonough asked him to not shoot. They searched McDonough, but found no weapons. On looking around, the witness found a revolver near the sill of the door, which was loaded. The officers also found a ‘jimmy’ about 10 feet back of the door. They took it, and fitted it in the marks on the back door, and it fitted exactly. The door was a big, heavy door, and had a coat of iron or steel on the outside of it. The jimmy had been used to pry open the door, and there were several marks on the door just the size of the point of the jimmy. On coming out on the street again, the witness noticed the same automobile make its tour around to Thirty-Seventh street and start towards them, and all at once it turned and started on Cottage Grove and went north at a good rate of speed. The witness had known Courtney about three months. The officers took the prisoners to the police station, and the witness said to Courtney, ‘You knew that we were on the 12 o'clock watch, and that if anybody ran into that it would be us.’ Courtney replied, ‘I don't know why I did it.’ They then asked him who else was with him, and he replied, ‘Well, a fellow by the name of Smith, and a fellow by the name of Burns.’ Courtney said he did not know where Smith and Burns lived; that he had just met them for the first time; that they needed a man to fill in, and they called him up, and he met them and was introduced to them. The officers also found a loaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wolff, 35358
...... People v. Dolgin, 415 Ill. 434, 114 N.E.2d 389; People v. Courtney, 307 Ill. 441, 138 N.E. 857. Defendant's remaining contentions bring into focus our decision in People v. Moses, 11 Ill.2d 84, 142 N.E.2d 1. All authorities examined agree that use of documents produced under the rule is restricted to impeachment, thus it is held that only ......
-
People v. McCasle, 38695
...... (See People v. Courtney, 307 Ill. 441, 138 N.E. 857.) Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. [35 Ill.2d 557] 680, heavily relied upon by defendant, is inapposite, for there the accused specifically requested the undivided assistance of counsel of his own choice, and the attorney appointed by the ......
-
State v. Martineau, 37637
...... [257 MINN 341] The court in People v. Bopp, 279 Ill. 184, 191, 116 N.E. 679, 682, stated:. '* * * The defenses of these two defendants were not the same. Each was an alibi, but each ...915, 147 A. 485; Commonwealth v. Tracey, 137 Pa.Super. 221, 8 A.2d 622; State v. Stago, 82 Ariz. 285, 312 P.2d 160; People v. Courtney, 307 Ill. 441, 138 N.E. 857; People v. Rose, 348 Ill. 214, 180 N.E. 791; People v. Rocco, 209 Cal. 68, 285 P. 704; Abraham v. State, 228 Ind. 179, 91 ......
-
State v. Weekley
...... by the defendant Scott was whiskey, and so intoxicating. liquor fit for beverage purposes. . . [40. Wyo. 167] In People v. Berglin, 309 Ill. 488, 141. N.E. 295, which was a prosecution for the possession and sale. of intoxicating liquor, it appeared that officers, ... an aiding and abetting which constitutes him a principal,. under the rules above mentioned. People v. Courtney,. 307 Ill. 441, 138 N.E. 857; 16 C. J. 133. The Supreme Court. of Iowa shortly states the rule thus, in the case of. State v. Berger, 121 Iowa ......