People v. Evertson
| Decision Date | 19 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 15536.,15536. |
| Citation | 310 Ill. 397,141 N.E. 696 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. EVERTSON et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; M. L. McKinley, Judge.
William Evertson, William J. Tatton, and Charles Caulo were convicted of burglary and larceny, and John Niznik and Orrie Cole were convicted of receiving stolen goods, and they bring error.
Reversed and remanded, except as to Niznik; as to him affirmed.
Stewart & O'Brien, of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield (Henry T. Chace, Jr., Edward E. Wilson, and Clyde C. Fisher, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiffs in error William Evertson, William J. Tatton, and Charles Caulo were convicted in the criminal court of Cook county of burglary and larceny, and John Niznik and Orrie Cole were convicted of receiving stolen property. The place burglarized was the real estate office of George F. Harding, at 3101 Cottage Grove avenue, Chicago, and the property taken consisted of money and bonds. Plaintiffs in error seek to reverse the judgments for errors occurring on the trial.
[1] Louis Strobel was arrested for this burglary, and made a confession of his participation in it, implicating Evertson, Tatton, and Caulo. He was not placed on trial, and did not testify in this case. Notwithstanding this, the complaining witness and two police officers detailed to the jury the story told them by Strobel. None of plaintiffs in error were present when Strobel made his confession. That it was error to receive this evidence is so elementary that citation of authority is unnecessary.
Evertson was arrested and questioned by the police. The officers testified that he denied any connection whatever with the burglary, but admitted that Strobel and otherswere in his room, at 2437 Prairie avenue, and that they had in their possession certain bonds and checks, which they said had been stolen from Harding. They further testified that he said he was very drunk, that he paid no attention to Strobel and his companions, and that he did not participate in a division of the stolen property. On the trial Evertson testified that he lived at 3132 Emerald avenue; that he was married and had five children; that he was engaged in the express business; that he owned two trucks, which he kept at a garage at 317 East Thirtieth street; that he had a room at 2437 Prairie avenue, where he sold intoxicating liquors; that Strobel and his companions came to this room to buy moonshine; that he did not see bonds in their possession; that they did not divide money among themselves in his room; that they did not tell him anything about the burglary of the Harding real estate office; and that he knows nothing about it. All of the testimony for the prosecution and the defense is to the effect that Evertson did not participate in this burglary, or in the distribution of the spoils.
[2] Tatton was arrested and questioned by the police. They say that he told them that he took the key to the Harding office from the place were the janitress placed it, and had a duplicate made, and gave this duplicate key to his brother, so that he could get into the office. He pointed out to the officers the hardware store where the duplicate key was made. On the trial he testified that he had been employed as shipping clerk by Van Cleef Bros., manufacturing chemists, from 1918 to 1922; that he left them in May, 1922, and engaged in the secondhand business at 504 East Thirty-First street, which is across the street from the Harding office; that he was arrested and questioned many times concerning his connection with the burglary; that he repeatedly denied any knowledge of it; that he was beaten several times, and finally, to save himself from further beatings, admitted furnishing the key to his brother; that he did not furnish a key to his brother, and that his statement to the police was false; that the first information he had of the burglary was when the janitress, who was living with him, came from the Harding office to his store and told him of the burglary; that the burglary occurred January 3, and that he married the janitress January 11. His brother was not under arrest or on trial, and there is no competent evidence in the record to show that he had anything whatever to do with the burglary. Tatton is a white man, and the janitress he married is a negress. On cross-examination he was compelled, over objection, to point out his wife in the courtroom, and she was directed to walk before the jury and exhibit herself. There was an examination of great length regarding his marriage to her, the time when it occurred, and the reasons for it. If it had been shown that this woman was in possession of information which would have shown Tatton's connection with this burglary, and that he married her for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gacho
...to the contrary must be rejected. The defendant, citing People v. Fiorita (1930), 339 Ill. 78, 170 N.E. 690, and People v. Evertson (1923), 310 Ill. 397, 141 N.E. 696, next contends that a portion of the State's cross-examination of him was improper, beyond the scope of direct, and so irrel......
-
People v. Gilyard
...no means of identifying it.' Defendant's authorities include People v. Smith, 25 Ill.2d 428, 185 N.E.2d 150 (1962); People v. Evertson, 310 Ill. 397, 141 N.E. 696 (1923). The State argues that 'even where stolen property is devoid of distinctive characteristics it will be admissible where s......
-
People v. Vehon
...317 Ill. 39, 147 N. E. 400;People v. Young, 316 Ill. 508, 147 N. E. 425;People v. Damico, 309 Ill. 577, 141 N. E. 374;People v. Evertson, 310 Ill. 397, 141 N. E. 696;People v. Buckminster, 274 Ill. 435, 113 N. E. 713;People v. Melnick, 263 Ill. 24, 104 N. E. 1111;People v. Carmichael, 314 I......
- People v. Kozlowski