People v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 11 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 26953.,26953. |
| Citation | 46 N.E.2d 967,382 Ill. 233 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. JOHNSTON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John A. Sbarbaro, Judge.
Arthur Johnson was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded with directions.A. Bradley Eben, and George R. Beiber, both of Chicago (Julius Resnik, of Chicago, of counsel; Franklin J. Stransky, of Chicago, on rehearing only), for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Arthur Johnston, was tried alone in the criminal court of Cook county before a jury on the charge of receiving stolen property. He was found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for an indeterminate term of one to ten years, with an advisory recommendation incorporated in the judgment that he serve a minimum of three years and a maximum of six years. He prosecutes a writ of error to this court.
On October 31, 1941, the plaintiff in error, along with Phillip Goldberg, Ralph Guralnick, Morris Poznansky and Evelyn Stuchel, was indicted by the grand jury of Cook county. The indictment contained three counts, one of armed robbery, one of simple robbery and the third for receiving stolen property. He was convicted under the third count, the first two counts having been dismissed on motion of the State's Attorney.
The evidence shows that Leonard Fisher was employed by the firm of Jack Glasser, Inc., and he testified that on October 16, 1941, he started out to make some deliveries for the company. After making three deliveries and one pickup, he was abducted in his automobile by Poznansky and Guralnick at the point of a gun and was driven to the Forest Preserve where he was forced to go into the woods and was there guarded by Poznansky while Guralnick transferred the goods from his automobile to theirs; that while the other car sped away he caught a glimpse of its license number; that after the goods were transferred, he retrieved his car and drove to the police station, where he reported the matter. He further testified that he was robbed of twelve articles in all, consisting of five fur coats, a fur jacket, a fur scarf, four cloth coats and one muff.
Three of the other defendants, Poznansky, Guralnick and Goldberg testified for the State, and since the sentence of Johnston, they have each been released upon probation. They testified that on the night previous to the robbery, they met and planned committing the crime for the next day; that on the following morning they met and drove to the Glasser establishment and waited for Fisher. Fisher loaded the merchandise and was followed by the three defendants in Poznansky's automobile. The evidence further shows that Fisher made several deliveries and then finally Poznansky and Guralnick forced him into his own automobile at the point of a gun and drove him to the Forest Preserve where Poznansky took him into the woods while Guralnick was transferring the goods into Poznansky's car which was being driven by Goldberg. The robbers then drove to Johnston's store which is situated on Armitage avenue. When they arrived at the store, Johnston was not there, but one Evelyn Stuchel was there, and Poznansky offered to sell the furs to her, informing her that he had just obtained them by robbery. She made a telephone call to someone and told Poznansky to drive to the garage next door. Poznansky was the only one who had visited this store previously, having been there to purchase a suit of clothes about six months previous to this time. The testimony shows that the coats were then transferred to another car under the supervision of Evelyn Stuchel, and that after the same were transferred they went back to the store while they waited for Johnston. When Johnston arrived he stated that he was going to have the coats appraised and that he would be back. The defendants waited in his store for about an hour and a half when Johnston returned and informed the robbers that he would give them $450 for the coats. Miss Stuchel gave Johnston a roll of money and he counted out $450 in $10 bills and gave them to the three men. The defendants then went back into the garage and went to Goldberg's house and divided the money between them, each receiving $150. When these men were apprehended, most of the money was found upon their persons still in the $10 denominations. Johnston's story, corroborated by Elmer Matson, his employee, was that he was engaged in the retail men's-clothing business and that on October 16, 1941, Poznansky and Goldberg appeared at his store and offered to sell him some furs which they said had been stolen, but that Johnston told them he wanted no part of them, and the men left. He denied that he purchased any property from the men and denied that he ever paid them any money. Evelyn Stuchel was not produced as a witness, but Johnston and Matson both testified that she was not present on the premises at the time when the men came in. Johnston also produced evidence showing that he purchased considerable goods from regular wholesale clothing merchants and that he was regularly engaged in the clothing business. However, his place of business was located in the rear of a candy and confectionary store operated by his parents. He had no sign on any window or on the building indicating in any way that he was in the clothing business.
Irying Glasser testified that he was secretary-treasurer of Jack Glasser, Inc., a corporation, and that on October 16, 1941, he personally turned over to Leonard Fisher, his delivery boy, a number of packages for delivery to customers, and that he was familiar with the contents of the shipment. Glasser testified in detail to the different items of merchandise given to Leonard Fisher for delivery and testified as to the value and ownership.
Plaintiff in error contends that on a trial for receiving stolen property, it is incumbent upon the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property allegedly received is the identical property stolen by the thief and described in the indictment.
The stolen property had not been recovered and was not produced at the trial. However, there was definite proof of the articles delivered to Leonard Fisher for delivery. His testimony with respect to his stops for delivery and one pickup, together with the holdup and the transfer of the articles from his car to that of the robbers, tallies with the evidence of the three defendants. Glasser's testimony showed that he had made many of the coats for customers and described in detail each article, the ownership...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Butler, A--72
...of a felony. Gray v. People, 26 Ill. 344; Rider v. People, 110 Ill. 11; People v. Niemoth, 409 Ill. 111, 98 N.E.2d 733; People v. Johnston, 382 Ill. 233, 46 N.E.2d 967; People v. Jurek, 357 Ill. 626, 192 N.E. 686. We have, however, recognized that such testimony is not of the most satisfact......
- People ex rel. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Illinois v. Barrett
-
People v. Hansen
...recovered. Indeed, a conviction of receiving stolen property may be sustained even though none of it is recovered. (People v. Johnston, 382 Ill. 233, 46 N.E.2d 967.) Further, in cases such as this, value is not based upon the cost of the stolen merchandise, but upon its fair cash market val......
-
People v. Todaro
...a reasonable doubt, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of a felony. People v. Nitti, 8 Ill.2d 136, 133 N.E.2d 12; People v. Johnston, 382 Ill. 233, 46 N.E.2d 967; Gray v. People, 26 Ill. 344. While we recognize that such testimony is attended by infirmities which require caution in relyi......