People v. Rappaport
| Decision Date | 14 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 23270.,23270. |
| Citation | 362 Ill. 462,200 N.E. 165 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. RAPPAPORT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John C. Lawe, Judge.
Morris Rappaport was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Simon Herr, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and A. B. Dennis, of Danville (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Richard H. Devine, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
We are called upon, by this writ of error, to review a conviction of Morris Rappaport, in the criminal court of Cook county, of the crime of manslaughter. The indictment charged murder.
Harry Silverstein was shot and Killed at the rear of the Central Park Theater in Chicago on January 4, 1931. He was about twenty-five years old and was known as ‘Troubles' and ‘Red Iodine.’ Defendant, Rappaport, was twenty years old and was formerly employed at the theater. He was on the back of the stage that night with several others, including Herbert Imlach, the theater electrician, Irving Riffkind, and Robert Ross. About 8:30 p. m. Bob Lewis, who did not testify, came in, walked over to defendant,and said something to him. According to Imlach, Lewis said, ‘Troubles is coming looking for you.’ Ross testified that he said, ‘Red Iodine is outside,’ and, according to Riffkind, Lewis said ‘Somebody wants to see you outside.’ Riffkind testified that defendant then said, ‘I will fix him.’
All of them testified that defendant, after Lewis had talked with him, arose from his chair and went to an exist at the southeast corner of the building, which opened on a ramp along the side of the theater, and that within a few minutes two shots were heard. The witnesses rushed down the stairway leading to the exit and saw Silverstein grappling or fighting with defendant in the doorway. Imlach testified that there was a gun on the ground for which they were both reaching and struggling. Ross and Riffkind did not see any gun. Immediately after the homicide, defendant ran away. He was apprehended at Mansfield, Ohio, in February, 1935.
Robert Ross, a witness for the people, testified that, when defendant was told that Red was outside, he immediately got up and started to leave the building. He had left his car in an alley close to the back entrance of the theater. He was proceeding in that direction when he encountered Silverstein at the doorway. The witness testified he heard shots and ran to the doorway, where he found Silverstein had grabbed defendant, and that defendant was trying to get away. Ross parted the men and entreated Silversteinnot to start anything. Silverstein laughed, but called defendant dirty names. He struggled to get away from the witness, and in doing so struck the witness. Thereupon a shot was fired which hit and killed Silverstein. Ross did not see the shot fired.
Imlach and Riffkind testified they saw defendant fire the fatal shot from the doorway. Riffkind testified that defendant then said, ‘I got him.’ At the coroner's inquest, a few days after the killing, Imlach testified that, when he saw the revolver on the ground, he ran back into the theater and heard what he imagined was a shot; that he was told it was a shot, but was so excited he did not know whether it was or not.
Riffkind testified on direct examination that he came to the theater with Ross. On cross-examination he changed his story and said he came from his home to the theater alone. Eh then said he went first to Ross' home and from there to the theater looking for Ross. He also testified that just before the shot was fired defendant came back into the hallway, grabbed an ax from the wall, and ran toward the exit with it. Imlach, Ross, Riffkind and others were present when Lewis warned defendant that Silverstein was looking for him. They were present when the fight took place and until defendant ran away, yet nobody corroborated Riffkind's testimony as to the ax or as to defendant's alleged statements before and after the fight.
Defendant claims he was in great fear of Silverstein and acted in self-defense. The testimony shows that from the time defendant was in high school up to the time of the killing Silverstein repeatedly committed unprovoked assaults upon him. As a result of one of them, defendant bears a scar on his underlip, and from another beating his tongue was so badly cut it had to be sewed. On one occasion, while defendant was in his automobile in front of a public garage, Silverstein attempted to get into the car to assault him. Defendant fired through the window of the car. He testified that Silverstein was trying to strike him with a wrench, that he fired to one side to frighten him, and had carried a gun for self-protection since Silverstein's threats to kill him. On other occasions, Silverstein ran defendant into garages and other buildings, and told him he would not rest until he killed him. Silverstein was five feet ten inches tall and weighed 180 pounds, while defendant was five feet five inches high and weighed but 115 pounds. He did not owe Silverstein, there was no trouble between them over love affairs, and no family feud. The assaults were without justification, and the evidence shows defendant was never the aggressor, but fled, on several occasions, to avoid a beating. He caused some of his friends to intercede with Silverstein to induce him to let him alone. They were unsuccessful, and Silverstein said he meant to break defendant's back the first time he saw him and to knock his head off before he got through with him. These threats were communicated to defendant, and he testified that he was in fear of his life or great bodily harm from Silverstein. His testimony as to the assaults and the attempts of his friends to induce Silverstein...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Carter
...309 Ill. 292, 306, 141 N.E. 196 (1923) ; People v. Talbe, 321 Ill. 80, 91, 151 N.E. 529 (1926) (attempted escape); People v. Rappaport, 362 Ill. 462, 468, 200 N.E. 165 (1936) (flight); People v. Gambino, 12 Ill.2d 29, 32, 145 N.E.2d 42 (1957) (escape and attempted escape); People v. Harper,......
-
People v. Neiman
...create a presumption of guilt, then such presumption is certainly rebuttable and may be explained. In People v. Rappaport, 362 Ill. 462, at page 468, 200 N.E. 165, at page 167 (1936), the court 'Defendant's flight was a circumstance tending to prove his guilt and could be shown by the peopl......
-
People v. Johnson, 61900
...as defendant's motivation for flight, are admissible. (People v. Autman (1946), 393 Ill. 262, 267, 65 N.E.2d 772; People v. Rappaport (1936), 362 Ill. 462, 468, 200 N.E. 165; People v. Montogomery (1st Dist.1973), 16 Ill.App.3d 127, 133, 305 N.E.2d 627.) On direct examination of the defenda......
-
People v. Sullivan
...would tend to explain or excuse the flight on grounds consistent with innocence, a defendant is entitled to show them. (People v. Rappaport, 362 Ill. 462, 200 N.E. 165; People v. Bundy, 295 Ill. 322, 129 N.E. 189.)' (29 Ill.2d 127, 130--131, 193 N.,.e.2d 841, The court has recently held tha......