People v. Mangano
| Decision Date | 10 December 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 25697.,25697. |
| Citation | 30 N.E.2d 428,375 Ill. 72 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MANGANO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John A. Sbarbaro, Judge.
Jerry Mangano was convicted of murder, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.Charles A. Bellows, of Chicago (J. W. Bellows, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
John E. Cassidy, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and A. B. Dennis, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Jerry Mangano, Joseph Russano, and Italo Begani were indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for the murder of Harry Francois, a policeman. Russano and Begani secured a severance. A jury found Mangano guilty an imposed the death penalty. This writ of error was issued to review the record as to Mangano.
About 10:30 on the evening of November 20, 1939, Theodore Nelson and a woman companion were sitting in his automobile parked in the vicinity of Humboldt Park in Chicago when Mangano appeared on the left side of the automobile and Russano and Begani on the right. All were armed and they demanded that Nelson unlock the door, ordered the woman to move to the rear seat and told Nelson they were going to use his automobile. At this time Francois and another police officer riding in a police car stopped nearby. Francois approached the Nelson automobile and asked what was going on. Nelson replied that he was being held up and about that time Nelson started his car to drive away. Mangano, who was then near the left rear of the Nelson car, shot and killed Francois, and he, with the other two defendants, fled, but all were taken into custody on November 22.
On the trial Nelson and the woman accompanying him identified Mangano as one of the three who held them up. Frederick A. Blank, the officer who was with Francois in the police car, identified Mangano as the one who fired the shot. Blank testified that he saw Mangano in the police station on November 22 and asked him why he shot the police officer. Mangano replied, Sergeant Reilly of the police force had a conversation with the defendant the same day, in which Mangano said it was the first opportunity he had to get even with the police officers for shooting his partner some five or six years previous. Mangano testified in his own behalf and admitted firing the shot that killed the officer.
The principal error assigned relates to the admission of evidence. Over the objection of the defendant the People were permitted to introduce evidence of other crimes as follows: (1) Jeanette Goldberg, the owner of a leather goods store, testified that on April 8, 1939, the defendant and another, both armed, came into her store and attempted a holdup; when the defendant ran from the place he shot Mr. Goldberg in an eye; (2) Leo Kafka testified the defendant and two others robbed him of personal articles and money on November 5, 1939; (3) William Wcislo and Lottie Kurpiewski testified that on November 7, 1939, they were seated in an automobile when Mangano and the other two defendants, all armed, got into the car and drove it into an alley. There the robbers took from them personal effects and money. After driving into another alley Mangano, by the means of a gun, ordered Miss Kurpiewski to get out of the car and go down the alley, where he reped her; (4) Wilma Smith testified that on November 12, 1939, while seated in an automobile with Charles Cholke, the defendant and three others got into the car and drove it away. They were armed and Mangano and his companions took from them money and personal effects (5) Alice McDermott, in charge of a Western Union office on Jackson boulevard, said that on November 15, 1939, two armed men, one of whom was the defendant, robbed that office; (6) Homer Dickson, in charge of a Western Union office on East Cermak road, testified that on October 16, 1939, the defendant and another, both armed entered the office. The record does not disclose what happened thereafter; (7) John R. Spears testified that as he was nearing his automobile on the night of November 20, 1939, the defendant and two others robbed him. Mangano, testifying in his own behalf, denied participation in each and all of said crimes.
Evidence which discloses that the accused committed crimes other than the one charged is admissible only when it tends to establish the crime for which he is being tried. Before such evidence is admissible it must meet the same test as to relevancy and materiality to the issues as other evidence. People v. Jennings, 252 Ill. 534, 96 N.E. 1077, 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 1206; Farris v. People, 129 Ill. 521, 21 N.E. 821,4 L.R.A. 582, 16 Am.St.Rep. 283. It has been held that the evidence of other crimes is admissible if it has a tendency to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Owen
...309 Pa. 515, 164 A. 726; Commonwealth v. Williams, 307 Pa. 134, 160 A. 602; Smith v. People, 32 Colo. 251, 75 P. 914; People v. Mangano, 375 Ill. 72, 30 N.E.2d 428; People v. Lane, 300 Ill. 422, 133 N.E. 267; People v. Heffernan, 312 Ill. 66, 143 N.E. Under circumstances where it is the dut......
-
State v. Folkes
...305, 144 S.W. (2d) 270; People v. Moskowitz, 38 N.Y.S. (2d) 189; Wright v. State, 141 Tex.Cr. 265, 148 S.W. (2d) 197; People v. Mangano, 375 Ill. 72, 30 N.E. (2d) 428. No decisions taking the contrary position have been found. I believe that all of the above decisions were correctly By reve......
-
People v. Smith
...prove motive in order to sustain a conviction of murder. (People v. Shack (1947), 396 Ill. 285, 292, 71 N.E.2d 633; People v. Mangano (1940), 375 Ill. 72, 76, 30 N.E.2d 428.) It is also well established, however, that any evidence which tends to show that an accused had a motive for killing......
-
People v. Huckstead
...charged." The instruction accurately states the law (People v. Hobbs (1966), 35 Ill.2d 263, 269, 220 N.E.2d 469; People v. Mangano (1940), 375 Ill. 72, 76, 30 N.E.2d 428), and we perceive no error in the giving of it even in a case where the State has introduced some evidence of motive and ......