People v. Davis, No. 34630
Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Writing for the Court | BRISTOW |
Citation | 14 Ill.2d 196,151 N.E.2d 308 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Roy DAVIS, Plaintiff in Error. |
Decision Date | 20 June 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 34630 |
Page 308
v.
Roy DAVIS, Plaintiff in Error.
[14 Ill.2d 197] Roy Davis, pro se. for plaintiff.
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and Benjamin S. Adamowski, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, William H. South, Carmi, Francis X. Riley and Edwin
Page 309
A. Strugala, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.BRISTOW, Justice.
Roy Davis, hereinafter referred to as defendant, has prosecuted this writ of error to review two judgments of the criminal court of Cook County, convicting him of robbing[14 Ill.2d 198] Richard Polk on March 29, 1956, and on April 13, 1956, as charged in the separate indictments, and sentencing him in both causes to terms of one to ten years, to run concurrently.
As grounds for reversal of these convictions, defendant urges that the trial court erred in improperly admitting evidence relating to other crimes, and that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining the merit of these contentions, we shall review first the controverted testimony offered in cause number 56-1212, involving the alleged robbery of April 13, 1956.
The cause was tried by the court alone, since defendant waived a jury. In support of the indictment the State offered first the testimony of Richard Polk, a driver for the United Parcel Service. He stated that at approximately 3:45 P.M. on April 13, as he came down to the first floor after making a delivery for his employer on the third floor of the building at 1019 East Forty-second Street, a man, whom he identified as the defendant, came out from behind the steps with his hand in his pocket, ordered him to be quiet and lie down, and then took some $39 of company money from his person. He was then told to go up to the top flight of steps, while the man left the building by the front door. When the witness returned to the third floor landing, he observed defendant crossing the street and entering an alleyway.
Polk further testified that on June 2, 1956, while he was making a delivery for the company on the 4600 block on Michigan Avenue, he saw defendant pass his truck. After completing the delivery, Polk reported this incident to his office, and then went to the police station, where he was advised that nothing could be done unless he knew the whereabouts of defendant. Later that day Polk saw defendant in the vicinity of the 4800 block on Michigan Avenue. He summoned three police officers in the area and [14 Ill.2d 199] told them that defendant had robbed him previously and was in the neighborhood.
According to the testimony of the police officers, two of them proceeded to look for a man fitting the description given by Polk. When defendant saw them he ran into a hallway, and they brought him out for questioning. Defendant gave his correct name and address, and denied that he was doing, or had ever done, anything wrong, or ever robbed Polk. However, upon seeing Polk approaching with the third policeman, defendant attempted to break away. Polk testified that he then told the policemen that defendant was the man who had robbed him previously, and one of the police officers testified that when Polk came up to defendant as he was being held by the officers, Polk stated, 'This is the man that robbed me three times.'
Defendant's counsel requested that a mistrial be declared because of that testimony, but the request was denied and the objection overruled. The court entered a nolle pros on the habitual count of the indictment, and overruled defendant's motion for discharge; whereupon defendant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Billstrom, No. 39976
...(9 Cir.), 173 F.2d 181, 185; State v. Caton, 134 Kan. 128, 130, 4 P.2d 677, 678; State v. Hawley (Mo.) 51 S.W.2d 77, 78; People v. Davis, 14 Ill.2d 196, 200, 151 N.E.2d 308, 310; People v. Mandrell, 306 Ill. 413, 419, 138 N.E. 215, 217; Whiteman v. State, 119 Ohio St. 285, 293, 164 N.E. 51,......
-
People v. Neiman, Gen. No. 67-46
...v. [90 Ill.App.2d 343] Schaffner, 382 Ill. 266, 46 N.E.2d 989; People v. Herbert, 361 Ill. 64, 196 N.E. 821.' Also see: People v. Davis, 14 Ill.2d 196, 202, 151 N.E.2d 308 (1958). Flight or attempted escape is a circumstance which may be considered as tending to cast suspicion on the testim......
-
People v. Moore, Nos. 38773
...time of the arrest. (People v. Wright, 30 Ill.2d 519, 198 N.E.2d 316; People v. Anderson, 17 Ill.2d 422, 161 N.E.2d 835; People v. Davis, 14 Ill.2d 196, 151 N.E.2d 308; People v. Jackson, 9 Ill.2d 484, 492, 138 N.E.2d 528; People v. Smith, 413 Ill. 218, 108 N.E.2d 596; People v. Durkin, 330......
-
People v. Harrison, No. 76-1709
...reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, it will not [57 Ill.App.3d 16] be disturbed on appeal. People v. Catlett; People v. Davis (1958), 14 Ill.2d 196, 151 N.E.2d From our examination of the record, we are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to justify a finding of guilt beyond ......
-
State v. Billstrom, No. 39976
...(9 Cir.), 173 F.2d 181, 185; State v. Caton, 134 Kan. 128, 130, 4 P.2d 677, 678; State v. Hawley (Mo.) 51 S.W.2d 77, 78; People v. Davis, 14 Ill.2d 196, 200, 151 N.E.2d 308, 310; People v. Mandrell, 306 Ill. 413, 419, 138 N.E. 215, 217; Whiteman v. State, 119 Ohio St. 285, 293, 164 N.E. 51,......
-
People v. Neiman, Gen. No. 67-46
...v. [90 Ill.App.2d 343] Schaffner, 382 Ill. 266, 46 N.E.2d 989; People v. Herbert, 361 Ill. 64, 196 N.E. 821.' Also see: People v. Davis, 14 Ill.2d 196, 202, 151 N.E.2d 308 (1958). Flight or attempted escape is a circumstance which may be considered as tending to cast suspicion on the testim......
-
People v. Moore, Nos. 38773
...time of the arrest. (People v. Wright, 30 Ill.2d 519, 198 N.E.2d 316; People v. Anderson, 17 Ill.2d 422, 161 N.E.2d 835; People v. Davis, 14 Ill.2d 196, 151 N.E.2d 308; People v. Jackson, 9 Ill.2d 484, 492, 138 N.E.2d 528; People v. Smith, 413 Ill. 218, 108 N.E.2d 596; People v. Durkin, 330......
-
People v. Harrison, No. 76-1709
...reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, it will not [57 Ill.App.3d 16] be disturbed on appeal. People v. Catlett; People v. Davis (1958), 14 Ill.2d 196, 151 N.E.2d From our examination of the record, we are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to justify a finding of guilt beyond ......