People v. Hein

• Decision Date: 16 December 1924
• Docket Number: No. 16236.,16236.
• Citation: 315 Ill. 76,145 N.E. 654
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HEIN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

315 Ill. 76

145 N.E. 654

PEOPLE

v.HEIN.

No. 16236.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 16, 1924.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Hosea W. Wells, Judge.

Carl Hein was convicted of burglary, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Willis B. Wood, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Virgil L. Blandang, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Clyde C. Fisher, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

DUNN, J.

Carl Hein was tried in the criminal court of Cook county on an indictment in three counts, charging the burglary of the dwelling house of Clara Green, forcibly and in the nighttime, in the first two counts, and without force, the doors and windows being open, in the third. The first count also charged the larceny, at the time of the burglary, of three wrist watches, three strings of pearls, two diamond rings, and three suits of underwear. He was found guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and the court adjudged him guilty of the crime of burglary in the nighttime, and sentenced him to imprisonment in the penitentiary for that crime. By this writ of error he seeks to reverse the judgment on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, that it is not responsive to the issue, and the court erred in not arresting the judgment and in entering judgment on the verdict.

The evidence shows that Clara Green put three strings of pearls, three wrist watches, two diamond rings, and two suits of underwear in her trunk in her room at 4704 Magnolia street, in the city of Chicago, where she lived, occupying a bedroom of a five-room flat on the third floor of a six-apartment building. She kept these articles locked in the trunk from February 16, when she put them there, and kept the door of her room locked. On February 22 she looked for them and could not find them, though the trunk was locked and the lock unbroken, and she noticed nothing wrong with the windows or door. She reported her loss to the police on February 23. She testified that she was called to the station on February 28, and identified the three strings of pearls. She returned to the station the same evening, about 10:30, and talked to the plaintiff in error. He said that he had the beads last summer, and she said she could prove they belonged to her. He then said that he would tell her where the rest of the stuff was pawned; that, if he had known it was she, he would never have done it; that he knew where it was pawned, but not the name of the place. She next got her wrist watches and rings at the custodian's office. She testified that her landlady and the maids had keys to her room and did the cleaning; that she had been introduced to Hein in a restaurant, and he had never been to her room, and she had never told him where she lived. He said at the station that he was not in her place at all but was downstairs, and said that John Blackwell gave him the pearls.

The plaintiff in error occupied a room at 850 Dakin street with John Blackwell. On February 28 he was in his room with Gordon Mickelson, preparing to go to the state's attorney's office, where they were to be questioned in a murder case. He took three strings of pearls from a drawer, gave them to Mickelson, and asked him to give them to Blackwell, and, if Blackwell did not come back, to give them to the plaintiff in error's wife. He testified that Blackwell had gone to Indiana for a few days, and Hein did not know when he would return. Hein and Mickelson were arrested soon afterward, that same evening, and taken to the station. Mickelson threw the pearls behind a shovel and later told one of the officers about them. After being questioned about the murder, he was released. He testified that he knew Blackwell, and that the plaintiff in error said the pearls were Blackwell's.

Frank A. Gill, a police officer, testified that he found the pearls behind a shovel. He heard Clara Green say to Hein, in the presence of Cudmore, another police officer, that she could prove the pearls were hers. Hein then said he could show her where the rest of the things were. Hein further stated that around the 18th or 19th, between 7 and 8 o'clock, he went up to 4704 Magnolia street with Blackwell, and Blackwell went inside the building and he waited outside and acted as lookout man, and Blackwell came out in about an hour, and they both went down the street, and the following day went into a pawnshop on Clark street. Gill went with the plaintiff in error and Cudmore to a pawnshop, which the plaintiff in error said he thought was the place; that they went inside, and the plaintiff in error looked at the book and said, ‘Here it is,’ and the jewelry was found there.

George A. Cudmore, another police officer, testified that he questioned the plaintiff in error at the station in the presence of Clara Green, Officer Gill, and Captain Gary, and the plaintiff in error said he had the beads up in Milwaukee. He finally said that they were her beads, and the other things were down on Clark street in a pawnshop, and if they would go with him he would show them. He said there was a fellow named Blackwell who said he knew where he could get some jewelry; that the plaintiff in error went with him on the evening of February 18, between 8 and 9 o'clock, and stood outside or across the street while Blackwell went in; that he came out and gave the plaintiff in error all the jewelry; that the next day they went down on Clark street and pawned the articles, and Blackwell gave him $20. Cudmore went with Gill and the plaintiff in error to the pawnshop and recovered the jewelry. The plaintiff in error did not have a pawn ticket.

Herman Cohn, a pawnbroker, testified that on February 19 two men brought three wrist watches and two diamond rings to his shop and pawned them, but he could not say that the plaintiff in error was one of the men.

Hein was questioned at the station, and he testified on the trial that Clara Green came into the station and he recognized her as a girl he had met. She said these pearls were hers, and he said that, if they belonged to her, it was ‘unbeknownst’ to him, because the pearls were left in his room by Blackwell. She said that there were three wrist watches and two diamond rings, and he replied that he did not know anything about where the stuff came from; that it was left there by Blackwell. He further testified that the day Blackwell went to Indiana the witness rode down with him and stopped at the Empire, on Clark street, and went into a shop, and what name Blackwell gave in the shop he did not know. He saw the whole transaction, and Blackwell pawned two diamond rings and three wrist watches and got $50 for them. He stated that when he went there with the officers they looked over the books, and he could not tell them what name Blackwell used. He denied making the statement that he went to 4704 Magnolia street with Blackwell, or stayed on the street while Blackwell went upstairs. He said he did not go anywhere with Blackwell on Magnolia street, and did not say to Clara Green that he was sorry he did it; that he said, ‘I am sorry that you are the victim, and that I am the one accused;’ that he voluntarily assisted the police in every way to find the property and Blackwell, and that he did not help get the jewelry, and did not receive any of the proceeds.

The plaintiff in error argues that there is no proof of the corpus delicti—that a burglary had actually been committed—and that proof of a burglary by evidence other than the plaintiff in error's admission was necessary before the plaintiff in error could be called upon to make any defense to the charge, and before his admissions could be considered; that, if there was a burglary, there was no competent evidence to prove that it was committed in the nighttime and the defendant's explanation of his possession of the pearls and knowledge as to the other property was sufficiently clear and...