People v. Moran

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SMITH
• Citation: People v. Moran, 378 Ill. 461, 38 N.E.2d 760 (Ill. 1942)
• Decision Date: 15 January 1942
• Docket Number: No. 26374.,26374.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MORAN et al.

378 Ill. 461

38 N.E.2d 760

PEOPLE

v.MORAN et al.

No. 26374.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 24, 1941.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 15, 1942.

Error to Second Division, Appellate Court, First District, Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; James F. Fordy, Judge.

George Moran and Frank Parker were convicted of the crime of conspiracy. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court, People v. Parker, 310 Ill.App. 307, 34 N.E.2d 110, and the defendants bring error.

Affirmed.Wm. Scott Stewart, of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.

George Moran, Hill & Vandever, and John H. Rogers, all of Chicago, for plaintiff in error Frank Parker.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

SMITH, Justice.

Plaintiffs in error, George Moran and Frank Parker, were convicted on a trial before a jury in the criminal court of Cook county, of the crime of conspiracy. They were each sentenced to confinement in the county jail for the term of one year and to pay fine of $2,000. That judgment has been affirmed by the Appellate Court for the First District. By this writ of error they seek to reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

Plaintiffs in error, with eight other defendants, were jointly charged by two counts of the indictment with conspiracy to forge and counterfeit traveler's checks purporting to be made and issued by the American Express Company, with the intentto damage and defraud any and all persons who could be induced to accept said checks as genuine. By two other counts in the indictment they were charged with unlawfully conspiring to falsely utter, publish and pass as true and genuine, said forged and counterfeited checks with like intent. The trial extended over a period of several days. The evidence covers more than 1,150 pages in the record.

The Appellate Court, in its opinion, set out the facts fully and in detail. The statement of facts in that opinion alone covers approximately 23 pages of the published opinion. That opinion is published in full. People v. Parker, 310 Ill.App. 307, 34 N.E.2d 110. To set out the facts here in detail would not only unduly extend this opinion, but would serve no useful purpose. For the purposes of this opinion we refer to the opinion of the Appellate Court where all the material facts will be found, accurately and carefully recited.

It is contended in this court that the verdict rests entirely upon the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices. It is further contended that the trial court erred in its rulings and unduly limited and restricted plaintiffs in error in the cross-examination of some of the witnesses for the People. Two of the defendants were not apprehended. Three others, Hanson, Bruno and Ahrens pleaded guilty and testified for the People. They were each sentenced to serve one day in the county jail. Three other defendants, Hicketts, Keller and Sexton were found not guilty by the jury. The principal witness for the prosecution against plaintiff in error Parker, was one Van Bever. As to plaintiff in error Moran, the People's case depends chiefly on the testimony of Van Bever and Hanson, Bruno and Ahrens, the three defendants who pleaded guilty. Van Bever was employed by the American Express Company to assist in ferreting out the crime and obtaining evidence against the guilty parties. He had been disbarred from the practice of law in the State of California. After his disbarment there he returned to Chicago where, according to his testmony, he has since been engaged in the practice of law. He has never been disbarred in Illinois. Through his acquaintance with plaintiff in error Parker, he became familiar with the activities which led to the indictment in this case. Shortly after he received information from plaintiff in error Parker, relative to the plan to forge and counterfeit traveler's checks in the name of the American Express Company, he reported to a policeman by the name of Paradowski. He also communicated with the officers of the American Express Company. He was shortly thereafter employed by that company for the purpose of running down and obtaining evidence to be used against the conspirators. It is admitted that a conspiracy as between Hanson, Bruno and Ahrens was established by the evidence.

Plaintiffs in error argue that there is no evidence in the record to corroborate Van Bever, Hanson, Bruno and Ahrens, as to their guilt. The further argue that since these witness were accomplices, their testimony could not be used to corroborate each other. It is then contended that Moran and Parker should have been found not guilty because the evidence of the above witnesses was not corroborated. The argument in this connection is based upon a statement in the brief that Moran and Parker had been acquitted by another jury of some greater offense, intimated to be the charge of forging and counterfeiting the traveler's checks referred to in the indictment in this case. This extraneous statement is entirely outside the record and obviously cannot be considered by this court whatever the fact may be. It is then speciously argued, from this false premise, that the conclusion necessarily follows that the jury evidently did not believe Van Bever, but gave plaintiffs in error a short sentence on general principles. Whatever plaintiffs in error hope to gain by this argument, not based on anything in the record, it is certainly of no assistance to this court. The fair inference is, however, that they intend to state that plaintiffs in error were acquitted by the jury in that case of the offense of forging and counterfeiting traveler's checks and that such charge was contained in the indictment in this case; that the jury found the defendants guilty of the minor offense of conspiracy to utter and publish and pass traveler's checks; that this proves conclusively the jury did not believe the evidence offered by the People and found plaintiffs in error guilty of a lessor offense and imposed a light sentence because of doubt as to their guilt. This argument could not be given any weight even if the facts assumed were true. However, the record does not justify either the statements or the inferences. The indictment contained four counts. Briefly, the first and second counts charged that the defendants conspired to unlawfully and falsely, make, forge and counterfeit, traveler's checks. Counts 3 and 4 charged them with conspiracy to falsely utter, publish and pass, as true and genuine, the forged and counterfeit traveler's checks. It will be seen that in every count of the indictment plaintiffs in error were charged with conspiracy, of which crime they were found guilty by the jury. The statute provided the same punishment for the charge in each count of the indictment.

A further difficulty with the argument for plaintiffs in error on this branch of the case is that they improperly assume that Van Bever was an accomplice and that his testimony could not, for that reason, be accepted or considered by the jury. As a matter of fact Van Bever was not an accomplice. People v. Hrdlicka, 344 Ill. 211, 176 N.E. 308;People v. Dalton, 355 Ill. 312, 189 N.E. 265. The mere fact that he led the conspirators to believe that he was joining with them in the commission of the offense when, as a matter of fact, he was doing it only for the purpose of obtaining evidence against them, did not make him an accomplice. Moreover, it is not the law, as contended by plaintiffs in error, that a conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of accomplices alone. While the testimony of an accomplice must, as a matter of law, be received with suspicion and acted upon with great caution, nevertheless it is competent evidence and a conviction may be based on such testimony, uncorroborated, if it is of such a character as to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the guilt of the accused. People v. Buskievich, 330 Ill. 532, 162 N.E. 196; People v. Birger, 329 Ill. 352, 160 N.E. 564;People v. Looney, 324 Ill. 375, 155 N.E. 363;People v. Maggio, 324 Ill. 516, 155 N.E. 373. This case, however, does not depend entirely upon the testimony of Van Bever or of the three defendants who had pleaded guilty. We agree with the finding of the Appellate Court that there was much other corroborating evidence and circumstances in the case, tending to establish the guilt of plaintiffs in error.

It is the province of the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine the facts. This court will not disturb a verdict of guilty or reverse a judgment of conviction on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to convict, unless the verdict is palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence or the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. People v. Buskievich, supra; People v. Holton, 326 Ill. 481, 158 N.E. 134;People v. Nusbaum, 326 Ill. 518, 158 N.E. 142;People v. Hicketts, 324 Ill. 170, 155 N.E. 39;People v. Thompson, 321 Ill. 594, 152 N.E. 516. The jury passed on the facts in this case adverse to the contentions of plaintiffs in error. The trial court denied a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict. That judgment has been affirmed by the Appellate Court upon an exhaustive examination of the testimony in the case. We would not be justified in setting aside the verdict and judgment upon the facts.

Plaintiffs in error contend that they were unduly prejudiced by some of the answers given and statements made by Van Bever While on the witness stand. It is true that some of the statements made by this witness were improper. These improper statements, however, were not made in response to questions asked him by the assistant State's attorney. Such answers and statements were, in each instance, promptly stricken by the court. The record does not justify the claim that there...