People v. Rosenbaum
| Decision Date | 22 October 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 13999.,13999. |
| Citation | 132 N.E. 433,299 Ill. 93 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ROSENBAUM. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Jesse Holdom, Judge.
Sanford Rosenbaum was convicted of forgery, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Frank A. McDonnell, of Chicago (Thomas E. Swanson, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Edward C. Fitch, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edward E. Wilson and Clyde C. Fisher, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Sanford Rosenbaum, plaintiff in error, was convicted in the criminal court of the county of Cook on an indictment for forgery and sentenced to the state penitentiary at Joliet. He prosecutes this writ of error to reverse the judgment. It will only be necessary to consider two errors assigned by plaintiff in error: (1) That the court erred in denying him a change of venue; and (2) in excluding offers of competent evidence made in his behalf.
Plaintiff in error's petition for a change of venue was based on alleged prejudice of the trial judge. His sworn petition for a change of venue is in substantial compliance with the statute, and was accompanied by two affidavits of reputable persons, residents of the county of Cook, and not of kin to or counsel for plaintiff in error, stating that they verily believed that plaintiff in error could not receive a fair and impartial trial before the trial judge, Judge Jesse Holdom, on account of his prejudice against plaintiff in error. Due and timely notice was given to the state's attorney that plaintiff in error would present such a petition asking for a change of venue, and the petition was presented in apt time. The right to a change of venue from the trial judge in a criminal case on compliance with the statute is absolute, and it was reversible error for the court to overrule the motion. People v. Cohen, 268 Ill. 416, 109 N. E. 259;Cantwell v. People, 138 Ill. 602, 28 N. E. 964.
For the purpose of having the jury make a comparison of plaintiff in error's handwriting with that of the alleged forged signature indorsed on the back of the forged instrument by him, plaintiff in error offered to write on a piece of paper the name ‘Philip R. Bloom,’ being the same name indorsed on the forged instrument and alleged to have been forged by him. The court refused this offer, and refused to allow plaintiff in error's counsel to have plaintiff in error write said name for comparison by the jury. The court did not commit error in such ruling. To have granted such request, and to have permitted such evidence to go to the jury, would amount to nothing more than giving the plaintiff in error an opportunity to fabricate evidence for himself, by changing the style...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tate
...substitution provision was then called, was absolute and that an erroneous denial of the same was reversible error. People v. Rosenbaum , 299 Ill. 93, 94, 132 N.E. 433 (1921) ; see Cantwell , 138 Ill. at 604, 28 N.E. 964, People v. Cohen , 268 Ill. 416, 109 N.E. 259 (1915), and People v. Mc......
-
People v. Holveck
...must be supported by personal knowledge (Linkogle, 54 Ill.App.3d at 833, 11 Ill.Dec. 467, 368 N.E.2d 1075, citing People v. Rosenbaum (1921), 299 Ill. 93, 132 N.E. 433), and "a witness may not state his opinion or conclusion concerning [another's] out-of-court statement" (Linkogle, 54 Ill.A......
-
People v. Brown
...the testimony of a lay witness must be confined to statements of fact of which the witness has personal knowledge. (People v. Rosenbaum (1921), 299 Ill. 93, 132 N.E. 433.) Although our courts have allowed a witness to testify as to his observations or sensory perceptions (People v. Burton (......
-
People v. Davis
...to make the necessary orders to effectuate the change; and the denial of the petition constitutes reversible error. People v. Rosenbaum, 299 Ill. 93, 132 N.E. 433; People v. Cohen, 268 Ill. 416, 109 N.E. 259; Cantwell v. People, 138 Ill. 602, 28 N.E. The petition was not accompanied by an a......