People v. Panczko
| Decision Date | 29 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35651,35651 |
| Citation | 169 N.E.2d 333,20 Ill.2d 86 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph PANCZKO, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
George R. Bieber, Jason Ernest Bellows, and Sherman C. Magidson, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Grenville Beardsley, Atty. Gen., and Benjamin S. Adamowski, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
In the early morning of December 30, 1958, Joseph Panczko was apprehended in the garage of Edward Koniecki. When he was apprehended, he had a screwdriver in his right hand. A brace and bit, not belonging to Koniecki, was found close to Panczko in the garage. Panczko was tried before a jury in the criminal court of Cook County and found guilty of the crime of possession of burglar's tools. After a hearing on a motion for increased sentence under the Illinois Habitual Criminal Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 38, par. 602) the trial court found that defendant was an habitual criminal and sentenced him for a term of not less than three years nor more than four years. The cause is here on writ of error.
The defendant has argued several points for reversal, one of which is that prejudicial remarks of the prosecutor denied him a fair and impartial trial. The People argue that the timely action by the court and the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt cured the prejudicial remarks.
During the course of the trial, testimony was given that defendant had on several occasions admitted he was a burglar and had been stealing for 20 years. This testimony was allowed on the theory that it tended to prove the defendant's intention to use the tools he possessed as burglar's tools.
The prosecutor in the following line of argument failed to confine his remarks to the purposes for which the evidence of other crimes was offered: At this point the prosecutor remainded the jury that there was evidence that the defendant had tried to give the Konieckis money when they caught him, but that the Konieckis had refused to accept the money and called the police.
He then continued: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bernette
... ... The assistant State's Attorney responded with the following comment: 'They (the records requested) are not to be furnished to persons who defend criminals in this building.' Such a statement standing alone could have operated to the detriment of the defendants. (Cf. People v. Panczko, 20 Ill.2d 86, 169 N.E.2d 333; People v. Freedman, 4 Ill.2d 414, 123 n.E.2d 317.) However, shortly after making the above statement, the assistant State's Attorney clarified his comments in an apology directed to the jury: 'It is my understanding that I made a statement before that it isn't the ... ...
-
State v. Dozier
... ... State v. Cousins, 4 Ariz.App. 468, 421 P.2d 901 (1967); People v. McCoy, 80 Ill.2d 257, 225 N.E.2d 123 (1967); People v. Bender, 20 Ill.2d 45, 169 N.E.2d 328 (1960); Contra, Patterson v. State, 233 Ga. 724, 213 ... ...
-
People v. Galloway
... ... Where, as in the present case, the jury has nothing to do with fixing the punishment, we have held that it is improper for either side in a criminal case to argue the punitive effect of the jury's verdict. (People v. Klapperich, 370 Ill. 588, 594, 19 N.E.2d 579; People v. Panczko, 20 Ill.2d 86, 88, 169 N.E.2d 333.) It was defense counsel who first referred to commitment, thus provoking the objection, and we are loathe to say that reversible error occurred, particularly since the trial court promptly overruled the prosecutor's objection ... Complaint is ... ...
-
Damron v. Com.
... ... His comments were beyond the scope of the record and the issues before the jury. They included: ... "What keeps those people [on 'minimum security'] from walking off all of the time? There are no fences. What keeps them there? They don't want to be charged with ... Commonwealth, Ky., 406 S.W.2d 849 (1966). Appellant also cites one case factually in point from another jurisdiction, People v. Panczko, 20 Ill.2d 86, 169 N.E.2d 333 (1960). But apparently there is no case squarely in point on the facts from this jurisdiction ... ...