People v. McGee, No. 35791

• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: DAILY
• Citation: 173 N.E.2d 434,21 Ill.2d 440
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Chester McGEE, Plaintiff in Error.
• Decision Date: 29 March 1961
• Docket Number: No. 35791

Page 434

173 N.E.2d 434 21 Ill.2d 440 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error,
v.
Chester McGEE, Plaintiff in Error. No. 35791. Supreme Court of Illinois. March 29, 1961.

Arthur G. McLendon, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William L. Guild, Atty., Gen., and Benjamin S. Adamowski, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis X. Riley, Asst. State's Atty., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

[21 Ill.2d 441] DAILY, Justice.

Defendant, Chester McGee, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook County for the crime of burglary and, after a trial by jury, was found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than one nor more than twenty years. He prosecutes this writ of error for review.

It is undisputed that on the morning of June 14, 1959, some person broke and entered a six-room apartment in the city of Chicago occupied by Donald W. Feltz, Sr., his wife and their two children. The crucial issue in the case is whether defendant was the intruder and, in this respect the solitary circumstance connecting him with the offense was his identification by the complaining witnesses. Defendant, who was 39 years old and had no prior criminal record, denies his guilt and insists that the circumstances surrounding the identification

Page 435

were such that his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Feltz and his wife had just retired at approximately 2:45 A.M., when the latter heard a noise on the back porch. She could see a kitchen screen was being removed and told her husband that someone was getting into the apartment. He got out of bed and went to a closet for his rifle. As she watched the kitchen window, estimated as being five yards from her bed, Mrs. Feltz saw a man remove five flower pots from the window sill and place them on the back porch. He then put his head and shoulders through the window, forced the sash up with his shoulders and crawled into the kitchen where he stood up and moved from her sight. It appears there was a night light for the children in the kitchen, and, although its exact wattage was not shown, it was the testimony of Mr. Feltz that it lit up the kitchen 'pretty good.' Mrs. Feltz described the intruder to the police as a man with a lot of hair slicked down to his head and said he was wearing a plaid shirt, dark pants and no hat. When cross-examined at the trial she testified she could not see the intruder's features while he was in her[21 Ill.2d 442] home, but identified him predominantly by his hair, clothing and build.

Feltz, after getting his rifle from a closet, stood behind the bedroom door holding the rifle as a club because he expected the man to enter the room. He waited a few seconds, put a shell into the rifle, then looked around the door and saw a man in the kitchen about fifteen feet away. He then jumped out and shouted to the man to 'hold it,' but the latter spun around and escaped through the back door. As he did, Feltz fired a shot at him. The description of the intruder Feltz gave to the police was that he had a lot of hair slicked down on his head, that he wore a red, almost plaid, jacket, and that he was a well-built man weighing about 160 pounds.

Two days later, at about 3:15 in the morning, defendant was arrested as he walked along the sidewalk in the vicinity of Halsted at 57th Street and it was his uncontradicted testimony that he was then returning from work to his home on 55th Street. A police officer testified defendant was wearing a red and black plaid jacket, black trousers and no hat; defendant stated he was wearing blue trousers, a dirty white hat, and a...