People v. Medivine

Decision Date14 February 1936
Docket NumberNo. 23177.,23177.
Citation200 N.E. 155,362 Ill. 409
PartiesPEOPLE v. MEDIVINE.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Hugo M. Friend, Judge.

Morris Medivine was convicted of robbery while armed with a gun, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Kamfner, Halligan & Marks, of Chicago (Harold E. Marks and Arthur J. Goldberg, both of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and A. B. Dennis, of Danville (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Richard H. Devine, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

STONE, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Morris Medivine, was convicted in the criminal court of Cook county of robbery while armed with a gun. He was jointly indicted with one Robert Jerome and charged with robbing one Louis P. Kahn. The case was tried without a jury. Jerome was acquitted. Medivine brings the case here on writ of error, and argues that the evidence did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The testimony of the people's witnesses is that about 6:30 p. m. on the evening of August 30, 1934, Kahn was robbed in his cigar store by a man who stepped up behind him, and placing some hard object behind his ear, demanded that he throw up his hands. Some $15 to $18 was taken from his pocket, and he was directed to lie down on the floor, which he did. He did not see the person robbing him. Later he was told to crawl into the toilet in the back part of the store. This he did, and found a number of other men huddled in the toilet at that time. The cigar store building was divided into a small sales room in the front, a large card room in the middle, and a small office and a toilet in the rear. Some twenty-five persons were in the large middle room, seated at card tables, when a man identified as Medivine came in and ordered them all to hold up their hands. Thomas Maloney, a police officer, on being informed that a robbery was taking place in Kahn's cigar store, went in with his revolver in his hand. Finding the front room of the store unoccupied, he went into the center room and saw some twenty or more men lined up in a semicircle in the rear of the room with their arms in the air and Medivine was holding a revolver leveled at them. The witness shouted, ‘Throw up your hands!’ and Medivine turned and fired a shot. The witness fired five shots and Medivine fell. The witness stepped into the next room to load his pistol, and Medivine came from the center room and attempted to fire at him again. The witness returned the fire, and Medivine returned to the back room. Later he was found in the basement and ordered to come out, holding his hands over his head. His hand was bleeding, and he was also wounded in the shoulder. On being asked what he did with his pistol, he said it was in the basement. The gun was later recovered and identified by the blood upon it as the one in Medivine's possession. Jerome also was in the basement with him. Other police officers corroborated this testimony.

Medivine testified that he went to the cigar store and into the center room of the building to place a bet on a horse race; that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Touhy, 37548
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 29, 1964
    ...... (See: Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 38, pars. 501, 582; People v. Ruscitti, 27 Ill.2d 545, 190 N.E.2d 314, People v. Bates, 16 Ill.2d 290, 157 N.E.2d 68; People v. Medivine, 362 Ill. 409, 200 N.E. 155; People v. Lucas, 244 Ill. 603, 91 N.E. 659.) He insists, however, that with the advent of the 1961 Code an unarmed accessory may no longer be charged or found guilty as a principal to the crime of armed robbery.         To better understand defendant's position ......
  • Klumpp v. Rhoads
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • February 14, 1936
    ......The ordinance was further void in that particular. Potson v. City of Chicago, 304 Ill. 222, 136 N.E. 594;People v. City of Chicago, 261 Ill. 16, 103 N.E. 609,49 L.R.A.(N.S.) 438, Ann.Cas. 1915A, 292. There was no valid ordinance in 1925 prohibiting defendants ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT