People v. Cullotta
| Decision Date | 20 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 38767,38767 |
| Citation | 207 N.E.2d 444,32 Ill.2d 502 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Frank J. CULLOTTA, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Bellows, Bellows & Magidson, Chicago, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty Gen., Springfield, and William Bauer, State's Atty., Wheaton, for appellee.
Defendant, Frank J. Cullotta, was tried by a jury in the circuit court of Du Page County and convicted of burglarizing a television shop in the village of Bensenville. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, (48 Ill.App.2d 180, 198 N.E.2d 748,) and we have granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal to review his contention that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The television shop in question was located in an outlying shopping center, and was adjacent to an 'all-night' laundromat with which it shared a common wall. While on a routine patrol about 4:30 A.M., police officers noticed television and radio sets sitting on the floor of the laundromat and, upon investigating further, found a hole broken in the wall separating the two businesses. During the search of the premises Philip Manzella was discovered hiding behind a dryer in the laundromat, and his car, containing a number of new television and radio sets, was found in back of the building. Manzella admitted his guilt at the time, and footprints in the snow in the vicinity of the automobile led the police to believe he had an accomplice. Defendant was arrested the following day and was also charged with the crime.
At the trial, as may be seen in greater detail in the opinion of the Appellate Court, the proof tending to connect defendant with the crime fell into two categories. First, the testimony of two police officers identifying defendant as a man they had seen in the laundromat while driving by on patrols between 12:30 A.M. and 2:30 A.M., and second, the testimony of a police lieutenant that Manzella, when interrogated at place of arrest, had named defendant as his accomplice. For the defense, Manzella denied that defendant was implicated, denied that he had told the police defendant was his accomplice, and testified that he had been in the laundromat for some time prior to the burglary, during a part of which he sat and talked with another man who had come into the place. Defendant likewise denied his complicity and gave testimony of an alibi which was completely corroborated by his mother.
From a careful review of the entire record, it is our opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We have reiterated the rule that a conviction cannot be deemed to be sustained by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt if the identification of the accused was vague, doubtful and uncertain. (People v. Ikerd, 26 Ill.2d 573, 188 N.E.2d 12; People v. Horodecki, 12...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nims, 85-1707
...by the evidence if identification of the accused was vague and doubtful. (People v. Gardner (1966), 35 Ill.2d 564, 571 ; People v. Cullotta (1965), 32 Ill.2d 502, 504 ; People v. Hister (1974), 20 Ill.App.3d 933, 937 .) [The] identification of Ash was insufficient to support a conclusion th......
-
People v. Herrett
...his claim that the evidence here is insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt are distinguishable. (People v. Cullotta (1965), 32 Ill.2d 502, 207 N.E.2d 444; People v. McGee (1961), 21 Ill.2d 440, 173 N.E.2d 434; People v. Byas (1983), 117 Ill.App.3d 979, 73 Ill.Dec. 152, 453 ......
-
Grove v. Carle Foundation Hosp., 4-05-0488.
... ... * * * The appellate court's jurisdiction turns on litigants' compliance with our rules * * *." (Emphasis in original.) People v. Lyles, 217 Ill.2d 210, 216-17, 298 Ill.Dec. 752, 840 N.E.2d 1187, 1191 (2005) ... Lyles should serve as a reminder that when ... ...
-
People v. Slim
...if it is vague or doubtful. (People v. Ash (1984), 102 Ill.2d 485, 494, 82 Ill.Dec. 373, 468 N.E.2d 1153; People v. Cullotta (1965), 32 Ill.2d 502, 504, 207 N.E.2d 444.) A single witness' identification of the accused is sufficient to sustain a conviction if the witness viewed the accused u......