People v. Niemoth
| Decision Date | 22 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 31775,31775 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. NIEMOTH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Ferlic & Gannon, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., and John S. Boyle, State's Atty., of Chicago, (John T. Gallagher, Clement D. Cody, Rudolph L. Janega and Arthur F. Manning, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, William C. Niemoth, was indicted at the August term, 1945, of the criminal court of Cook County, for the crime of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon. An habitual criminal count was included in the indictment. Judgment was entered on the verdict of a jury sentencing plaintiff in error to the penitentiary for life. Hence this writ of error to review the record of conviction.
Robert C. Rumbolt testified that he was the caretaker and watchman for the Rumbolt Safety Deposit Vault Company, owned by his brother, E. H. Rumbolt. His abode was on the second floor of the building occupied by the vault company. On the night of January 19, 1945, he was assaulted as he was walking along a public street near his home. The keys of the vault company were taken from him. He was taken to the offices of the company and compelled to open the vault. The safety-deposit boxes in the vault were looted of valuables, including approximately $93,000 in cash, of which sum $3500 belonged to Robert C. Rumbolt. He was unable to identify any of the men who committed the crime.
On January 24, 1945, plaintiff in error was arrested and charged with the burglary of the vault company building and with the robbery of the watchman. A number of indictments were returned charging plaintiff in error, and four other persons, with the commission of these crimes. A trial under a burglary indictment, which had been returned at the March term, 1945, resulted in a verdict of not guilty as to plaintiff in error, and one other defendant. That trial was commenced on July 16, 1945. At the August term, 1945, the present indictment was returned charging plaintiff in error, and all the other persons who had been defendants in the burglary indictment, with the offense of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon.
Plaintiff in error was given a separate trial beginning on November 5, 1945. At the trial two of the defendants, Thomas Leahy and Michael Kozar, gave a detailed account of the crime, and the circumstances leading to its commission. They identified plaintiff in error as an active participant in the robbery of the watchman and subsequent looting of the safety-deposit boxes. Hodgedal Delgarian, a brother-in-law of Kozar, identified plaintiff in error as one of the men whom he found present in the basement of his home on the night the crime was committed. Kozar and Leahy testified that they had gone to the basement of Delgarian's apartment for the purpose of dividing the proceeds of the crime which they had perpetrated earlier that night. Plaintiff in error claimed that he was confined to his home by illness at the time the crime was committed. The only evidence supporting his alibi was the testimony of his wife.
Errors urged by plaintiff in error for reversal of the judgment of his conviction are that his previous acquittal under the burglary indictment is a bar to his conviction for robbing the watchman of the same property involved in the burglary; that the competent evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction; that he was held in jail more than four months without being given a trial as required by law; and that the State's Attorney was guilty of conduct prejudicial to his right to a fair trial.
Plaintiff in error's plea of former jeopardy is without merit and was properly overruled by the trial court. The elements necessary to be proved under a burglary indictment are not identical with those required to sustain a charge of robbery. The gravamen of the crime of burglary is the felonious intent with which the building of another is unlawfully entered. People v. Berkowski, 385 Ill. 392, 52 N.E.2d 710. The gist of the offense of robbery is the force or intimidation used in taking from the person of another, against his will, property belonging to him, or in his care, custody or control, and the actual ownership of the property taken is immaterial. People v. Leach, 398 Ill. 515, 76 N.E.2d 425. While both of these crimes may arise out of facts occurring in one transaction, the offenses are not the same because there is a distinct element in one which is not included in the other. When we reviewed the appeal of Patrick Flaherty, one of the other persons named in the indictment in the instant case, we specifically held that a conviction or acquittal of burglary does not exempt the accused from prosecution and punishment for robbery. The same rule is controlling in the present case. People v. Flaherty, 396 Ill. 304, 71 N.E.2d 779.
The court did not err in refusing to discharge plaintiff in error under section 18 of division XIII of the Criminal Code, which requires that a person committed for a criminal offense and not admitted to bail and not tried within four months of his commitment to jail shall be set at liberty unless the delay shall happen on the application of the prisoner. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1949, chap. 38, par. 748.) An examination of the trial court record reveals that separate indictments for burglary and robbery were returned against plaintiff in error at the February term, 1945; other indictments for the same crimes were returned at the March term, 1945. These cases were continued from time to time either on motion of the State's Attorney, on motion of plaintiff in error, or by agreement of the parties. The last continuance by agreement was on July 9, 1945, when the cause was continued until July 16, 1945. On the latter date the trial on the burglary charge commenced. Where plaintiff in error agreed to the continuance of his case, he was not entitled to be discharged because he was not tried within four months from the date he was committed to jail. People v. Meisenhelter, 381 Ill. 378, 45 N.E.2d 678; Martino v. Ragen, 374 Ill. 342, 29 N.E.2d 529. The operation of the statute having been suspended by his act in consenting to a continuance, the four months within which he was entitled to a trial did not commence until the expiration of the date to which the cause had been continued. People v. Stillman, 391 Ill. 227, 62 N.E.2d 698. The commencement of his trial on November 5, 1945, was within four months of July 16, 1945, the date of the last continuance.
Plaintiff in error makes a number of claims that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the crime charged. Among such contentions was one that the evidence failed to prove that he was actually imprisoned as a result of his former conviction for the offense of robbery in the State of Maryland. In making such assertion plaintiff in error forgets that he stated in his own testimony that he was convicted of robbery in Baltimore and was an inmate of the Maryland penitentiary until November 8, 1938. The abstract of record, prepared by counsel for plaintiff in error, contains a reference to People's exhibit 30, which was a record of proceedings in the case against Niemoth in the State of Maryland. The identity of plaintiff in error, as the defendant in that case, was stipulated at the trial. This exhibit, as abstracted, shows that William Niemoth was convicted of the crime of robbery and sentenced to imprisonment in the Maryland penitentiary. On behalf of the People it is pointed out that exhibit 30, as it appears in the record itself, shows the actual delivery of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McFarland
... ... Commonwealth (1886, Ky.), 84 Ky. 193, 1 S.W. 84, with Hunt v. Commonwealth (1960, Ky.) 338 S.W.2d 912, 914(1-6). The latter is in accord with the overwhelming weight of authority in this connection. (See, e. g., People v. Devlin (1904) 143 Cal. 128, 129-130, 76 P. 900; People v. Niemoth (1951, Ill.), 409 Ill. 111, 98 N.E.2d 733, 736(1, 3); People v. Parrow (1890, Mich.), 80 Mich. 567, 45 N.W. 514, 515; State v. Cowman (1947, Iowa), 239 Iowa 56, 29 N.W.2d 238, 240(3)-241(8); Goodwin v. State (1946, Fla.), 157 Fla. 751, 26 So.2d 898, 899(2), 19 A.L.R. 623; Cambron v. State (1922, ... ...
-
State v. Butler, A--72
...doubt, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of a felony. Gray v. People, 26 Ill. 344; Rider v. People, 110 Ill. 11; People v. Niemoth, 409 Ill. 111, 98 N.E.2d 733; People v. Johnston, 382 Ill. 233, 46 N.E.2d 967; People v. Jurek, 357 Ill. 626, 192 N.E. 686. We have, however, recognized tha......
-
People v. Turner
...Gooding (1975), 61 Ill.2d 298, 301, 335 N.E.2d 769; People v. Fosdick (1967), 36 Ill.2d 524, 530, 224 N.E.2d 242; People v. Niemoth (1951), 409 Ill. 111, 116, 98 N.E.2d 733.) The defendant and his attorney expressly agreed to the date chosen, with counsel repeating that he could try the cas......
-
People v. Ellis
...always admissible for the purpose of showing the guilt of the accused. People v. Mosley, 23 Ill.2d 211, 177 N.E.2d 851; People v. Niemoth, 409 Ill. 111, 98 N.E.2d 733; People v. Hobbs, 400 Ill. 143, 79 N.E.2d There is thus a distinction between impeachment of a nonparty witness and impeachm......