People v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 02 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 44217,44217 |
| Citation | 288 N.E.2d 403,52 Ill.2d 421 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Lee PATTERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Lee Patterson, pro se.
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 Nicholas A. DeJohn, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
Defendant, Lee Patterson, and two others were indicted for robbery. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, par. 18--1.) Following a joint bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the co-defendants were acquitted. However, defendant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of two to five years. The appellate court affirmed (People v. Patterson (1971), 131 Ill.App.2d 342, 268 N.E.2d 514), and we granted leave to appeal.
In this Pro se appeal the defendant claims (1) that he was not proved guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt where the same evidence was insufficient to convict his co-defendants; and (2) that the denial of a free transcript of his preliminary hearing was a denial of equal protection. He thereafter filed an amendment to the petition, reiterating the second contention.
The evidence adduced at trial was conflicting. The complainant testified that as she was walking in the 700 block of North Clark Street in Chicago at approximately 3:30 P.M. on July 7, 1968, she noticed three persons whom she identified as Lee Patterson, Sandra Miller and Russell Brown, walking ahead of her. Patterson turned, approached her, demanded money, wrenched her purse from her hand and took $75. Each then threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to the police. As the defendants departed, Patterson gave Miss Miller and Brown some of the money and they went to a nearby lot. Meanwhile, the complainant hailed a passing police car and accompanied the officer to this lot where the defendants were apprehended and the money recovered from under some nearby debris.
On cross-examination complainant testified that she had left her home and walked a lengthy distance to Chicago Avenue where she boarded a bus which she rode to Clark Street. She was proceeding south on Clark Street toward the Chicago Building Department when the alleged robbery occurred. However, she further admitted that earlier that day she had been shopping at a store located in the 'loop' area of Chicago. We take judicial notice of the fact that this area is in close proximity and is directly south of her purported destination. She also admitted that at the preliminary hearing she had testified that Patterson had given money only to Miss Miller, but 'remembered later' that he had also given some to Brown. On re-direct examination she testified that on August 26, 1968, at about 4:30 P.M. Sandra Miller, whom the complainant had seen on several occasions since the incident, and two unidentified men threatened to kill her if she persisted in prosecuting the case.
Officer Shurtleff, who did not witness the occurrence, testified that he was summoned by the complainant who informed him that she had been robbed by the three persons standing in the nearby lot. He proceeded to this area where the complainant identified Patterson as the man who had robbed her. He arrested the defendants and then recovered the money.
Defendant Patterson testified that he had seen the complainant 'around' but had met her for the first time at the Huron Club on the day of the alleged offense. They were drinking together from about 10:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and she had been caressing and kissing him at that time. When complainant went to the front of the tavern to play the juke box, he removed the money from her purse and fled through a side door. While he admitted he knew Brown, he maintained that he alone had taken the money, and that neither of the other defendants had been involved.
Defendant's version of the incident was corroborated by three witnesses. The codefendants testified that they had entered the Huron Club at about 2:30 P.M. on that day and noticed the complainant and Patterson drinking and indulging in amorous conduct at the bar. Miss Miller, having seen Patterson take money from the complainant's purse and flee, informed Brown and began to follow Patterson. Brown then followed Miss Miller in an attempt to prevent her becoming involved in the incident. As Brown approached Miss Miller, who was standing near defendant in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cartalino
...defendant(s) was no stronger than the evidence against the acquitted co-defendant. Cartalino's reliance on People v. Patterson (1972), 52 Ill.2d 421, 288 N.E.2d 403, is also misplaced. In Patterson the supreme court simply held that the uncorroborated testimony of the State's key witness, c......
-
People v. Bowman
...of fact is entitled to great weight, but where the record does not support the finding, this court must reverse. (People v. Patterson (1972), 52 Ill.2d 421, 424, 288 N.E.2d 403.) Where the truth must be ascertained from a debatable set of circumstances, it is a matter for the trier of fact;......
-
People v. Lee
...single eyewitness is sufficient to sustain a conviction if the witness is credible and his testimony is positive. (People v. Patterson (1972), 52 Ill.2d 421, 288 N.E.2d 403.) The assessment of the credibility of a witness is for the jury (People v. Williams (1982), 93 Ill.2d 309, 315, 67 Il......
-
People v. Bell
...doubt as to the guilt of the defendant but the factual determination of the trier of fact is given great weight. (People v. Patterson, 52 Ill.2d 421, 288 N.E.2d 403.) The appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder below unless the proof is so implausible or......