People v. Morehead, No. 41651
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | BURT |
| Citation | 45 Ill.2d 326,259 N.E.2d 8 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Thoston MOREHEAD, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 41651 |
Page 8
v.
Thoston MOREHEAD, Appellant.
[45 Ill.2d 327]
Page 9
Sam Adam and Edward M. Genson, Chicago, for appellant.William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Joseph Romano, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
BURT, Justice.
Defendant, Thoston Morehead, was convicted of the charge of criminal damage to property in a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County and placed on probation for two years, the first 30 days to be spent in confinement in the house of correction. He appeals directly to this court alleging, Inter alia, a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination. Since it is also claimed that the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt a brief review of the testimony is necessary.
Harold Mally, a police officer, testified that he was on duty in a patrol car at about 8:30 P.M. December 12, 1967, when he received a call. Thereafter he drove about a block [45 Ill.2d 328] and parked near a telephone booth located in the vicinity of 4000 West Cermak Road. From a distance of about 30 feet he observed a person in the booth who lifted an object from the center of the enclosure and set it does on a ledge. After watching the activity within the booth for about four minutes, the officer left his car and walked to the booth where he found the defendant inside. The top of the phone had been taken off and placed on a ledge. This was not its normal position. The system inside the instrument had been exposed and could be seen with the naked eye. Two screwdrivers lay on the floor and defendant had cloth gloves on his hands. The officer placed defendant under arrest and advised him of his rights, after which he asked him what he was doing there. Defendant stated that he was making a phone call. At the time of his arrest defendant had about $103 on his person--two $50 bills and $3 in change.
Paul Hassel, a special agent for the telephone company, testified that the damage to the instrument in question amounted to $85. An alarm system had been installed connecting the telephone with the central office of the company. Whenever the equipment was disturbed or tampered with a light and buzzer would be activated. Over objection Hassel testified that he had been notified that the alarm for the booth in question had come on at about 8:30 P.M. and that as a result the police were notified.
The defendant testified that after getting out of an automobile in which he had ridden with some friends after a card game, he went to the telephone to call his wife or a cab; that as he placed a dime in the instrument it started falling, so he lifted it and placed it on the ledge and that he was arrested immediately thereafter. He further stated that he had won heavily in the card game and had about $720 on his person at the time. His friends had wanted him to go to another game but he had refused because he had already won and it didn't make sense to go to another game. He admitted he had had a conversation with agent Hassel [45 Ill.2d 329] but denied that he had told Hassel he had been out with a woman. He was not sure whether he told the agent he had been in a card game but thought he had. Defendant denied that he had any screwdrivers in his possession or that he had tampered with the telephone.
Page 10
Charles Sanders and Archie Cole testified that they had been in a card game with defendant beginning at about 3:00 P.M. on the date in question; that in the evening they requested he go with them to another card game but he refused, stating he had to meet his wife. They let him out of their car at about 4000 Cermak Road. They last saw him about 8:25 P.M. Cole stated that defendant had six or seven hundred dollars in his pockets.
In rebuttal Paul Hassel testified that he had spoken with defendant at the police station on the evening in question. Defendat's counsel objected to the admission into evidence of any statements made by defendant to Hassel unless it was shown that defendant had been advised of his rights and warned of the consequences in compliance with the guide lines specified in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. The witness testified that he had 'warned defendant of his constitutional rights'. The trial court ruled that Hassel was not required to admonish defendant since he was not a policeman. The witness then testified that defendant explained his presence in the neighborhood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Paino, No. 84-0867
...of alleged errors in the trial court unless it appears that the guilty finding was the result of such errors. (People v. Morehead (1970), 45 Ill.2d 326, 259 N.E.2d 8, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 251, 27 L.Ed.2d 251.) Generally, a trial court's prompt action in sustaining an objecti......
-
People v. Siguenza-Brito, No. 106068.
...single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to convict, even though it is contradicted by the defendant. People v. Morehead, 45 Ill.2d 326, 329-30, 259 N.E.2d 8 (1970); People v. Novotny, 41 Ill.2d 401, 411, 244 N.E.2d 182 (1968); People v. Johnson, 24 Ill.2d 195, 198, 181 N.E.2......
-
People v. Richardson, No. 60213
...been denied or that a finding of guilt resulted from an error, we will not reverse a defendant's conviction. (People v. Morehead (1970), 45 Ill.2d 326, 332, 259 N.E.2d 8.) Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, the admission of limited evidence of the May 4, 1982, robbery does not requi......
-
People v. Robinson, No. 59196
...was not voluntary. There is no other claim of harm or prejudice to the defendant. Page 321 What we observed in People v. Morehead, 45 Ill.2d 326, 332, 259 N.E.2d 8, is appropriate here: 'It is not the policy of this court to reverse a judgment of conviction merely because error was committe......
-
People v. Paino, No. 84-0867
...of alleged errors in the trial court unless it appears that the guilty finding was the result of such errors. (People v. Morehead (1970), 45 Ill.2d 326, 259 N.E.2d 8, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 251, 27 L.Ed.2d 251.) Generally, a trial court's prompt action in sustaining an objecti......
-
People v. Siguenza-Brito, No. 106068.
...single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to convict, even though it is contradicted by the defendant. People v. Morehead, 45 Ill.2d 326, 329-30, 259 N.E.2d 8 (1970); People v. Novotny, 41 Ill.2d 401, 411, 244 N.E.2d 182 (1968); People v. Johnson, 24 Ill.2d 195, 198, 181 N.E.2......
-
People v. Richardson, No. 60213
...been denied or that a finding of guilt resulted from an error, we will not reverse a defendant's conviction. (People v. Morehead (1970), 45 Ill.2d 326, 332, 259 N.E.2d 8.) Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, the admission of limited evidence of the May 4, 1982, robbery does not requi......
-
People v. Robinson, No. 59196
...was not voluntary. There is no other claim of harm or prejudice to the defendant. Page 321 What we observed in People v. Morehead, 45 Ill.2d 326, 332, 259 N.E.2d 8, is appropriate here: 'It is not the policy of this court to reverse a judgment of conviction merely because error was committe......