People v. Dalke
| Decision Date | 19 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 19417.,19417. |
| Citation | 336 Ill. 446,168 N.E. 258 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. DALKE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Commissioner's Opinion.
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Marcus Kavanagh, Judge.
Rudolph Dalke was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Leo D. Schein and Julius H. Gross, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Merrill F. Wehmhoff, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Charles and Rudolph Dalke, who are brothers, were indicted by the grand jury of Cook county for receiving stolen property, consisting of 269 dresses, of the value of $2.75 each, the property of Isadore Finkelstein. Rudolph was found guilty, he was sentenced to the penitentiary, and he has prosecuted a writ of error from this court to review the judgment.
The evidence consists of the testimony of Finkelstein and three police officers on behalf of the people, and of the brothers on the other side. It shows that the brothers lived alone in a four-room frame house at 1524 Walton street, in Chicago. Charles was a painter, and Rudolph was a taxicab driver. Charles testified that on September 4, 1928, he did some painting next door to his home until about 10:30 p. m. He then went home and went to bed. Rudolph testified that he worked at night, but on the night of the robbery his car was in the shop, being repaired. He waited for it until 1:30 a. m., and then went home, where he found his girl waiting for him. She was a waitress, and always came to his home when she was through with her work, and he took her home.
About midnight, September 4, 1928, the store of Isadore Finkelstein, at 1532 West Chicago avenue, was burglarized, and 269 dresses were stolen. Shortly afterwards the attention of Officers Buck and Shea was called to the burglary. They went to the store, and found some men standing on the corner near by. They talked with some of these men, and went immediately to the Dalke home. As they approached the house, they saw a car drive away from the rear. Shea went to the back door, and Buck went to the front door. Buck rapped on the door, and demanded admission, stating that they were police officers. The girl jumped through a window, and Rudolph hid in a closet. Buck saw the girl jump from the window. He drew his gun, and ordered her to stop. The only clothing she had on was a pink slip. Buck made her go back through the window, and he followed her into the house. He opened the back door and admitted Shea. They searched the house, and found the dresses in a back bedroom, covered with a blanket. In the front room they found Charles in bed, apparently asleep. They did not find Rudolph. They remained at the house until about 5 o'clock a. m., and then took Charles and the dresses to the station. The dresses were identified by Finkelstein as his property, which had been stolen. Officer Martinsen went to the house about 7 o'clock a. m. He searched the house, and found Redolph asleep in the closet. The officer asked him how long he had been in the closet, and he said, ‘About three hours.’
Rudolph testified that, when he reached home on the morning of September 5, 1928, at 1:30, the girl was there, and that she had been there since about 10:30 p. m. He saw Charles in bed, asleep. Rudolph and the girl had an argument, and she jumped through the window. After this he heard a knock on the door, and somebody yelled, He hid in the closet, because he thought the girl had called the police, because they had an argument and a fight. He slept in the closet until the following morning at 7 o'clock, when he was awakened by Officer Martinsen, who took him to the police station and locked him up. He testified he did not know at that time that there were any stolen dresses in the back bedroom, and the officer told him about it later. He testified that a man by the name of Johnson, whom he had known about 8 or 10 months,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Province Sec. Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co.
-
People v. Harris
... ... People v. Dalke, 336 Ill. 446,163 N.E. 258;[68 N.E.2d 730]People v. Prall, 314 Ill. 518, 145 N.E. 610;People v. Ensor, 310 Ill. 483, 142 N.E. 175. Section 6 of division XI of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1945, chap. 38, par. 716) directs that every indictment or accusation of the grand jury shall be deemed ... ...
-
People v. Blumenfeld
... ... It is contended by plaintiff in error that, if this was true, it took the joint acts of the two to constitute the crime of larceny, and that the same person cannot be both the thief and the receiver of stolen property. People v. Dalke, 336 Ill. 446, 168 N. E. 258;People v. Ensor, 310 Ill. 483, 142 N. E. 175. The rules laid down in those cases do not require a reversal of this case. While one person cannot receive stolen property from himself (People v. Barnhill, 333 Ill. 150, 164 N. E. 154), the evidence in this case does not ... ...
-
People v. Jurek, 22524.
...the goods are deposited in a place subject to his control.’ The two cases cited by the defendant and relied upon by him (People v. Dalke, 336 Ill. 446, 168 N. E. 258, and People v. Ensor, 310 Ill. 483, 142 N. E. 175) turn on the point that the evidence showed a theft by the defendant rather......