People v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 18 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 35236,35236 |
| Citation | 17 Ill.2d 513,162 N.E.2d 380 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Walter PETERSON, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
John L. White, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Grenville Beardsley, Atty. Gen., and Benjamin S. Adamowski, State's Atty., Chicago , for the People.
In a bench trial before the criminal court of Cook County Walter Peterson was convicted of robbery and sentenced to not less than three nor more than six years' imprisonment. He contends on this writ of error that evidence obtained by an unlawful search of his home was improperly admitted against him.
It appears that on December 21, 1956, around 3 A.M., one Brady Heglar was pushed into an alley and robbed as he was walking along a street in Chicago. Seven or eight dollars and a cloth zipper jacket were taken from him. He immediately reported the incident to the police, described his assailant, and signed a complaint. Some nine days later he saw defendant on the street and purportedly recognized him as the man by whom he had been robbed the week before. The police were called, and they placed defendant under arrest as he came out of a drug store. After searching and questioning him the two arresting officers placed him in a car with Heglar, and the four of them drove to defendant's place of residence, a small apartment building or rooming house. Upon their arrival the landlady admitted them into the building, and a search was made of defendant's room. In a clothes closet the officers found a cloth zipper jacket which fitted the description given by Heglar.
Both the arrest and the search were made without a warrant. It is conceded by the People that the only question for determination here is whether the evidence sufficiently shows defendant consented to the search. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, two witnesses testified, a police officer and the defendant. The officer testified that after being arrested the defendant denied having taken the coat, and said 'You can go to my house and look;' that defendant had no key to his room with him, but on arrival at the rooming house he obtained a bunch of keys from the landlady; and that after asking the officer to help him find the right one he unlocked the door himself. The defendant testified that upon being arrested he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pitman
...court's finding unless it is clearly unreasonable. People v. Ledferd, 38 Ill.2d 607, 610, 232 N.E.2d 684 (1967); People v. Peterson, 17 Ill.2d 513, 514-15, 162 N.E.2d 380 (1959); see People v. Bruce, 185 Ill.App.3d 356, 368, 133 Ill.Dec. 497, 541 N.E.2d 708 (1989). After reviewing the evide......
-
People v. Howard
...the question is left to the trial court whose decision will be accepted on review unless clearly unreasonable. (People v. Peterson (1959), 17 Ill.2d 513, 514-15, 162 N.E.2d 380; see People v. DeMorrow (1974), 59 Ill.2d 352, 358, 320 N.E.2d 1; People v. Salgado (1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 653, 656......
-
State v. Baych
...621; State v. Shephard, supra; Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 33, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726, 738; People v. Peterson, 17 Ill.2d 513, 162 N.E.2d 380, 381. Thus, the question of whether the consent was freely and voluntarily given is one of fact to be decided upon its own circum......
-
People v. Harrell
...the discretion of the trial court.' " (People v. DeMorrow (1974), 59 Ill.2d 352, 358, 320 N.E.2d 1, 5, quoting People v. Peterson (1959), 17 Ill.2d 513, 515, 162 N.E.2d 380, 381.) The rule for determining the voluntariness of a consent is as follows: it must be shown from the totality of th......