People v. Landry
| Decision Date | 02 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 54038 |
| Citation | 259 N.E.2d 604,123 Ill.App.2d 86 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry LANDRY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Harold H. Winer, Chicago, for appellant.
Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Elmer C. Kissane, Robert Kelty, Chicago, for appellee.
Jerry Landry and George Marks were indicted for operating a gambling device and keeping a gambling place. Ill.Rev.Stat., 1967, ch 38, Secs. 28--1(a)(3), 28--3. Tried jointly in a non-jury trial, they were found guilty and fined $300.00 each. Landry prosecutes this appeal. He contends the State failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he knowingly committed the offenses charged, and that the trial court's refusal to admit certain testimony into evidence and failure to rule on his motion to suppress evidence constitute reversible error.
Acting on information furnished to him, Officer Voelker, of the Cook County Sheriff's police, went to the Shady Rest Inn, Rosemont, in the early afternoon of January 18, 1967. Voelker, who was dressed in plain clothes, seated himself at the bar. He remained there for about an hour, ordering a meal and two beers from the bartender, George Marks. While he was eating he saw patrons playing a pinball machine; after he had finished, he went to the machine which was similar to others he had seen as a member of the Sheriff's vice and gambling unit. An indicator on the machine denoted the number of replays won. After depositing approximately $5.00 in the machine, the officer scored a 'win' which called for eight replays. Based on his prior experience, Voelker testified that a 'win' sign means that 10 cents will be paid for every replay. Voelker testified that he believed he had won. Marks came from behind the bar, walked over to the machine, reached behind it to neutralize the replay control, returned to the bar and gave the officer 80 cents.
Voelker, who spent nearly two and one half hours at the Inn, testified that while he was there he saw Landry, the licensed owner of the tavern, near the bar, in the kitchen and generally all over the place. However, he did not know whether Landry was in the tavern at the time he received the 80 cents from Marks.
Marks testified that he had been employed for one and a half weeks as a parttime bartender at the Shady Rest Inn. He recalled that on January 18, 1967, Voelker ate and drank at the tavern. Sometime after he finished his lunch and paid his bill, Voelker returned to the bar, said he had been playing the pinball machine and it was not registering. Voelker told Marks he had 80 cents in the machine and was in a hurry to leave. Marks said he was busy at the bar so, rather than fooling around with the machine, he just gave Voelker the 80 cents. After receiving the coins, Voelker left. Marks unplugged the machine and returned to work behind the bar. When Landry, who was not there at the time the money was given to Voelker, returned that afternoon, Marks informed him that the machine was out of order.
Landry testified that he was the owner of the Inn, but had left the premises before 1:00 p.m. on January 18th and had not seen Voelker playing the pinball machine. When informed by Marks that the machine was not working, he called the repair service and it was replaced with another one. Landry said that the machine which was taken from the premises by the police on January 19th was not the one played by Officer Voelker on January 18th. He also testified that the machine was used only for amusement purposes and that he never paid off patrons who played it and, further, that he had instructed his employees not to make payoffs. On the motion of the State the latter statement was stricken by the court.
When recalled to the stand, Officer Voelker testified that he had marked his initials on the machine while playing it on January 18th. When the machine was brought into court, Voelker identified it and pointed out his initials. The machine was not introduced into evidence.
Prior to the trial, both defendants moved to suppress the machine and the coins which Voelker received from Marks. The court denied the motion as to Marks, but reserved its ruling so to Landry. The motion to suppress was made and testimony in the case was heard in September 1967; thereafter, the trial was postponed several times either by order of the court or on motion of the defendant. There was more than a seven-month interval between the time the court reserved its ruling on the motion to suppress and the conclusion of the trial. The court's attention was never called to the long-pending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Davis, 56652
...having been waived. People v. Irwin, 32 Ill.2d 441, 207 N.E.2d 76; People v. Hairston, 46 Ill.2d 348, 263 N.E.2d 840; People v. Landry, 123 Ill.App.2d 86, 259 N.E. 604; People v. Harper, 127 Ill.App.2d 420, 262 N.E.2d Because we find that neither defendant nor his counsel moved to suppress ......
-
People v. McCarroll
...appeal the issues are further restricted to those presented by the defendant in his written motion for a new trial. People v. Landry (1970) 123 Ill.App.2d 83, 259 N.E.2d 604. The defendant was ably represented before and during his trial by a privately retained attorney who filed in his beh......
-
People v. Jennings, 54586
...having been waived. People v. Irwin, 32 Ill.2d 441, 207 N.E.2d 76; People v. Hairston, 46 Ill.2d 348, 263 N.E.2d 840; People v. Landry, 123 Ill.App.2d 86, 259 N.E.2d 604; People v. Harper, 127 Ill.App.2d 420, 262 N.E.2d Since the defendant did not set out the alleged two trial errors in his......
-
People v. Taylor
...known of the gambling devices that were in plain view, and that he permitted gambling on the premises. See People v. Landry, 123 Ill.App.2d 86, 259 N.E.2d 604 (1st Dist., 1970). In a jury trial of a criminal case, the determination of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be gi......