People v. Mines

• Decision Date: 15 March 1971
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 54302
• Citation: 132 Ill.App.2d 628,270 N.E.2d 265
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie MINES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 265

270 N.E.2d 265

132 Ill.App.2d 628

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie MINES, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 54302.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

March 15, 1971.

Edward B. Beis, Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Robert A. Novelle, Zenon Forowycz, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.

GOLDBERG, Justice.

A jury convicted defendant of reckless conduct. C. 38, § 12--5. The court sentenced him to 9 months at the Illinois State Farm. The complaint charged that defendant endangered the bodily safety of Officer Nickolas Graves by recklessly throwing bricks at him. The incident arose out of mob action which might be euphemistically described as a 'civil disturbance.' This took place on August 6, 1968 in and about a car wash in Harvey, Illinois, in the vicinity of 147th Street and Dixie Highway.

The complaining witness, Officer Nickolas Graves of the Harvey Police Force, testified that he knew the defendant by name; that the defendant was in the crowd, which he estimated at from 200 to 250 people, and that defendant was throwing stones, one of which struck the witness on the left leg. Officer Richard Czarniecki, of the City of Harvey, testified that he saw the defendant throw two rocks at the police officers but that he did not see any of the missiles strike the complaining witness. Czarniecki confronted the defendant and sought to place him under arrest but he ran away. Sgt. Phillip Hardiman, of the Cook County Sheriff's Police, also knew the defendant and observed him throwing rocks at passing cars and at the police. He believed that one of the rocks struck the complaining witness on the right side. Officer William Martin also knew the defendant by sight but not by name. He observed the defendant throwing rocks toward a parking lot where police officers had gathered. This activity occurred in the later part of the evening approximately at 11:00 or perhaps as late as 11:30.

The defendant testified in his own behalf. He stated that he lives in Dixmoor, Illinois. He left home between 3:00 and 3:30 in the afternoon and went to play basketball in the school grounds. After that, he rode about with his friend, Roy Rosborough, until about 10:00 or 10:15 that evening. At that time, he went into a tavern on 147th Street to purchase some beer. As he started to walk back to the school grounds, he passed the vicinity of the car wash. Some police officers called him across the street. When he came over, they asked if he knew that there had been a disturbance there during the evening. He answered affirmatively and the officer asked him if he was throwing rocks. He denied this but six police officers commenced to beat him and he was taken into custody.

This version of the incident is partly corroborated by defendant's friend, Roy Rosborough, who testified that the policemen called defendant over from across the street to the car wash and that was the last that he saw him that evening. He testified that he had been with defendant playing basketball until dark and that they had walked to the tavern together. He also testified that he did not see the defendant throw rocks at the police officers.

For reversal of the judgment, defendant raises three points. First, he contends that defendant was prejudiced by questioning which inferred that he had been in previous trouble with the police since they knew him by name and sight. Along similar lines, he contends that the evidence was prejudicial because the State's attorney raised the implication that defendant was part of a large mob creating a civil disorder. Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in receiving in evidence videotape pictures of the car wash and surrounding area.

We find no prejudice in the evidence as adduced by the State's attorney. Defendant cites no authority in his brief which holds that the introduction of evidence in this manner was prejudicial. It was fair and proper for the police to show that they knew the defendant as this would tend to bolster their identification of him as a person who threw rocks. It was also fair and proper for the witnesses to relate the surrounding circumstances, including the presence of the mob. In our opinion, this was material and probative in an effort to show the jury the background of the incident and also to establish motive for the conduct of the defendant. People v. Wilson, 46 Ill.2d 376, 380, 263 N.E.2d 856; People v. Harris, 46 Ill.2d 395, 399, 263 N.E.2d 35.

The evidence is more than ample to prove the guilt of the defendant of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. It is true that the evidence of defendant and his friend contradict the evidence adduced by the prosecution. However, it is basic and elementary that the verdict of this jury may not be set aside by us unless it is so palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence and so unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt of guilt. People v. Hairston, 46 Ill.2d 348, 366, 263 N.E.2d 840; People v. Nicholls, 44 Ill.2d 533, 540, 256 N.E.2d 818; People v. Parker, 120 Ill.App.2d 71, 78, 256 N.E.2d 67; People v. Olbrot, 117 Ill.App.2d 366, 374, 254 N.E.2d 569. We accordingly reject the first two contentions raised by defendant.

Donald Carlson, a Lieutenant in the Harvey Police Department, testified with reference to the challenged videotape photographs. He testified that the photographs were taken by him on January 21, 1967 at 11:00 p.m. and that they reflected the area in question. He testified that he took these pictures from two locations when approximately 100 feet from the car wash. He testified that the pictures truly and accurately represented the area as it...