People v. Jennings

• Decision Date: 22 June 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13940.,13940.
• Citation: 131 N.E. 619,298 Ill. 286
• Parties: PEOPLE v. JENNINGS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

298 Ill. 286

131 N.E. 619

PEOPLE

v.JENNINGS.

No. 13940.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 22, 1921.

Error to Circuit Court, Saline County; William N. Butler, Judge.

Sherman Jennings was convicted of burglary, and he brings error.

Judgment affirmed.Charles T. Flota, and Fowler & Rumsey, all of Harrisburg, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., and Charles H. Thompson, State Atty., of Harrisburg, for the People.

STONE, C. J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the circuit court of Saline county of burglary under an indictment consisting of two counts, one charging burglary and the other charging burglary and larceny. The building alleged to have been broken into was a storehouse, which the indictment charges belonged to Z. T. S. Leitch, in the city of Harrisburg, Ill., and situated about 150 feet southeast of the railway depot in said city. The building was used for the purpose of conducting a meat store or shop in one end and a coal office in the other. The evidence shows that on the night of March 26, 1920, a person identified as the plaintiff in error was seen near said store immediately after an alarm was given in a nearby restaurant that the store was being robbed. One witness testified that he saw plaintiff in error at the door shown to have been broken open; that plaintiff in error walked from the building to the platform of the railway depot, where he was arrested by the complaining witness, Leitch. The east door of the store had been broken open and the drawer of the desk of Leitch had been opened and papers scattered over the floor. The plaintiff in error was taken to the county jail. Upon searching him the sheriff found in one of his pockets a paper knife identified by Leitch as being his property; he testifying that it was in the drawer of the desk in the building in question on the evening of the date of the burglary. The knife was positively identified. The evidence showed it was made by Dr. Swan from a hacksaw blade and strips of walnut and had been given to Leitch some years prior to the date of the burglary.

Plaintiff in error's defense was an alibi; he and others testifying that at the time of the burglary he was at the home of Essie Farmer in this immediate neighborhood, and that he did not go into or near this building. The question as to the guilt of the defendant was one for the jury, and on a review of the record we are satisfied that they were justified in finding him guilty, and that this conviction should be sustained unless there be in the record such error as requires its reversal.

Plaintiff in error contends the court erred in admitting parol evidence of his former conviction and sentence to the penitentiary. It is well settled that the judgment and sentence of a court on a former conviction of an infamous crime cannot be proved by parol evidence, and, had this objection been urged at the time the testimony was offered, the court, doubtless, would have refused to admit it; but plaintiff in error's objection to the parol evidence was general, and not upon the ground that the record should be produced to prove the facts, and, not having raised the specific objection, he must be held to have waived it. In O'Donnell v. People, 224 Ill. 218, 79 N. E. 639,8 Ann. Cas. 123, the rule is laid down that, while the accused has the right to insist that only competent evidence shall be introduced against him, yet he may waive such right, and does do so by failure to interpose in apt time proper objections. In Simons v. People, 150 Ill. 66, 36 N. E. 1019, where a former conviction was sought to be shown by parol evidence, and only a general objection was offered to such evidence, this court said:

‘It is clear that the prosecution had no right to prove by parol that the defendant was convicted of an infamous offense, but the evidence was not objected to on the ground that the fact could not be proved by parol. It was not suggested to the court that the fact of conviction could only be proved by an authenticated copy of the record. Had the objection been made on this ground, doubtless the court would have excluded the evidence. The general objection made by the defendant was not sufficient.’

Counsel for plaintiff in error, having entered but a general objection, cannot complain here that this evidence was admitted. In addition, the record shows that certain record evidence was introduced to show this conviction, and, while it was not complete, its admission was proper. No motion was later made to strike the evidence on the ground it was not complete. Plaintiff in error, not having raised the proper objection to this testimony,...