People v. George
| Decision Date | 20 November 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 30162.,30162. |
| Citation | 76 N.E.2d 60,398 Ill. 318 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. GEORGE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Harold G. Ward, Judge.
Dilman George was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Macon H. Huggins, of Chicago (Harris B. Gaines, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and William J. Tuohy, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe and W. S. Miroslawski, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Dilman George, was indicted, tried and convicted in the criminal court of Cook County for the crime of receiving stolen property. A jury was waived and trial had by the court, resulting in the finding of guilty and a sentence to the penitentiary.
The indictment charges the property alleged to have been received by plaintiff in error was taken from John Hesser by robbery, and that its value was $260. The proof shows without contradiction that the plaintiff in error purchased the said property from one or more of the robbers, but knowledge upon the part of the plaintiff in error that such property was stolen was vigorously denied.
The points relied upon for reversal, in addition to the failure to prove criminal knowledge, are: An absence of proof of the value of the property stolen; and that the evidence fails to prove the guilt of the plaintiff in error beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence shows that on the night of December 14, 1946, John Hesser, a physician, was robbed, by three men, of an Omega watch was a pen-and-pencil set, and that plaintiff in error was not one of those who robbed him. The physician testified the watch cost $250, and the pen-and-pencil set cost $17.50, but they were a gift from his son, who purchased same overseas. The only other evidence of value was by a policeman, who volunteered the testimony that the robber had told him he had sold the watch to plaintiff in error for $25, and that it was worth $250. Objection was made to this testimony, and the objection sustained by the court; and for reasons pointed out hereafter such statement is not proof of value.
The statute makes a difference in the punishment of one charged with theft of property of the value of $15 or less, and one charged with the stealing of property of the value of more than $15; and the statute on the receiving of stolen property makes the same distinction, in that receiving property, stolen or obtained by robbery, of the value of more than $15 is punishable by confinement in the penitentiary, and if the value is $15 or less it is a misdemeanor. Value is therefore material in such a case, as it is necessary that it be proved in order for the court to mete out the proper punishment for the crime. It has long been established that the value of property received from one who has stolen or obtained same by robbery must be proved in order to determine whether the crime committed was a felony or a misdemeanor. In this particular instance the indictment charges that the property was of the value of $260.
The value proved must be the fair cash market value of the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cokeley
...of and experience with the particular species of property. Bonds v. State, 247 Ind. 260, 214 N.E.2d 796 (1966); People v. George, 398 Ill. 318, 76 N.E.2d 60 (1947). All of the witnesses who testified as to the value of the stolen copper wire predicated their opinions in whole or in part on ......
-
People v. Todaro
...In this type case it is necessary to establish the value of the property in order to fix the grade of the offense. People v. George, 398 Ill. 318, 76 N.E.2d 60. The statute under which this indictment was brought provides that if the value of the property does not exceed $50, the offense if......
-
People v. Stewart
...testified to by a person who has sufficient knowledge of the property and values to give a reasonable estimate thereof. People v. George, 398 Ill. 318, 76 N.E.2d 60. Richard A. Willett testified that he purchased the motor three or four months prior to the theft for $650, that he worked it ......
-
F. D., In Interest of
...the degree of an offense charged, the standard used is the "fair market value" at the time and place of the theft. (People v. George (1947), 398 Ill. 318, 76 N.E.2d 60; People v. Butman (1934), 357 Ill. 506, 192 N.E. 564.) Under the depreciated replacement cost method used in this case to d......