People v. Geisler
| Decision Date | 10 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21193.,21193. |
| Citation | 181 N.E. 328,348 Ill. 510 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. GEISLER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Joseph Burke, Judge.
Max Geisler and another were convicted on a charge of burglary, and they bring error.
Arrirmed.W. W. Smith and Edward M. Keating, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error Max Geisler.
Harold Levy, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error Jack Sopkin.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Max Geisler and Jack Sopkin, with one Lieberman, were tried in the criminal court of Cook county on the charge of burglary. Lieberman was found not guilty, but the defendants Geisler and Sopkin were found guilty, and their punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary. The case is before us on a writ of error.
The defendants have separate briefs. Similar points are made and argued in the briefs, with the exception that the brief of Geisler makes the additional point that the trial court committed error in refusing to grant him a new trial. The common points made and argued by both defendants are: (1) That the identification of the defendants as the burglars is indefinite; (2) that the prosecution failed to prove the material allegations of the indictment, which contained two counts: (a) Breaking and entering with force; (b) entry without force, the doors and windows being open; and (3) that the court erred in refusing to give a certain instruction.
About 1 o'clock in the morning of October 11, 1930, Thomas Kent, a night foreman of John Sexton & Co., while in the performance of his duties, met two armed men at the top of the stairway leading from the basement of the plant to the first floor. They forced Kent to walk in front of them up two flights of stairs to the main office of the company. Here they located the night watchman, named Post, and marched Kent and Post down stairs to the driver's room, where the two employees were compelled to lie on the floor. A second watchman who was on his rounds pulling the signal boxes was also gathered up by the two burglars, who took his signal box key from him. Post was then compelled to go around the factory and pull the rest of the signal boxes, Kent and the second watchman being forced to accompany them. About thirty men were working in the plant that night, and, as the two bandits came upon other employees, they were rounded up and made to follow behind Kent and Post. The whole group of corralled employees were then taken to the office and made to lie on the floor. Post was then marched to the sixth floor of the plant, and compelled to pull all of the signal boxes, after which he was escorted down stairs by one of the burglars, tied up, and told that he would be called again at 2 o'clock. The evidence is clear and indisputable that everywhere the two burglars went in the plant it was well lighted.
All the evidence for the people concerning the identity of the defendants came from the employees who were working that night. Foreman Kent testified that one of the two men was very short and stout; that, when he first saw him at the head of the stairs, he did not have his face concealed by any sort of mask, but fastened a handkerchief over his face while standing there. Kent obtained a view of his face before it was concealed. He said that this short, heavy-set man spoke broken English; that he wore a gray-colored sweater coat and cap, and that the handkerchief over his face did not completely conceal his features. Kent pointed out the defendant Sopkin as this man, and stated that he had previously identified him at a preliminary court hearing. The other burglar, according to Kent, was taller than Sopkin by three or four inches, and would weigh about 150 pounds, had light-colored hair, possessed a clear, natural voice devoid of peculiarities, and was dressed in a light-colored suit. As a mask this other burglar held a handkerchief before his face, but despite this Kent said that he saw all of his features. His description coincides with that of the other witnesses who identified Geisler. Post did not see the face (except the eyes) of the shorter of the two burglars, but did hear his voice, and testified that he recognized Sopkin as this man at the preliminary hearing. He further said that this short man spoke broken English, and wore a dark sweater and cap; the sweater being a peculiar shade of gray. Post did not identify Geisler. George Rauchenecker saw the watchman, Post, pulling the signal boxes instead of the man regularly assigned to that task. He said that Post was then accompanied by a man about five feet five inches in height who had his face about half covered with a handkerchief. This short man leveled a revolver at Rauchenecker and commanded him to fall in line with Post. Rauchenecker testified that, notwithstanding the mask, he was able to see the outlines of the burglar's features; the upper part of the face and both of his eyes being exposed. This man was identified by Rauchenecker as Sopkin at the preliminary hearing. This same witness furnished the first testimony to show that Geisler was the taller of the two men. Rauchenecker pointed out Geisler at the trial, and said he could identify him as the taller man, becausethis taller man exposed his face in profile on the night of the burglary, and endeavored to conceal his features by holding a handkerchief in front of his face. According to Rauchenecker's testimony, this man weighed about 150 pounds, was taller than his companion, had a sandy complexion, was dressed in a light gray suit and hat, and was clean shaven. Rauchenecker did not at first pick Geisler out of a group of men at the preliminary hearing, but later was positive in his identification. Witness Podgar could not identify Geisler, but did identify Sopkin. He based his identification upon the fact that he was able to see part of his face, and that he was a short man and wore a gray suit and cap. A witness by the name of Hamall said that Sopkin held a handkerchief to the said of his face. He made the identification from what he saw of the shorter man's features at that time, coupled with the fact that he was ‘low set’ and dark. He also testified that this short man was dressed in a gray-colored sweater and wore a cap. He said the taller of the two men had a light complexion and endeavored to conceal his features by holding a handkerchief before his face; also that he wore a light-colored hat. Hamall was positive that Geisler was one of the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Miller
...cannot be heard to impeach the verdict on motion for a new trial. See: People v. Brewer, 355 Ill. 348, 189 N.E. 321; People v. Geisler, 348 Ill. 510, 181 N.E. 328; People v. Quinn, 313 Ill. 351, 145 N.E. Two pre-trial matters which occurred in the circuit court of Fulton County are also urg......
-
People v. Anderson
...disturbed. This court, in the situation of the record here, will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. People v. Geisler, 348 Ill. 510, 181 N. E. 328; People v. Witte, supra. We are of the opinion that there is sufficient competent evidence in the record to uphold the jud......
-
People v. Palmer
...crime of burglary is such that its elements may be proved by circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom. (People v. Geisler, 348 Ill. 510, 181 N.E. 328.) It was established that someone entered this closed and locked tavern building and assaulted Herman Kampe. In addition, C......
-
People v. Weger
... ... Furthermore, in circumstances such as the present case, a juror will not be allowed to impeach his own verdict. People v. Pulaski, 15 Ill.2d 291, 155 N.E.2d 29; People v. Miller, 13 Ill.2d 84, 148 N.E.2d 455; People v. Geisler, 348 Ill. 510, 181 N.E. 328; People v. Rettich 332 Ill. 49, 163 N.E. 367; People v. Quinn, 313 Ill. 351, 145 N.E. 78; Reins v. People, 30 Ill. 256 ... The final error complained of by defendant is that reversal is required by certain portions of the State's Attorney's closing ... ...