People v. Scott

• Decision Date: 15 February 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13757.,13757.
• Citation: 296 Ill. 268,129 N.E. 798
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SCOTT.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

296 Ill. 268

129 N.E. 798

PEOPLE

v.SCOTT.

No. 13757.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 15, 1921.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Hugo Pam, Judge.

William Scott was convicted of murder and brings error

Reversed and remanded.

Leo L. Donahoe, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., and Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., and Edward C. Fitch, both of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, and Lloyd D. Heth, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

DUNN, J.

William Scott, having been convicted in the criminal court of Cook county of the murder of Joseph S. Grossfield and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, has sued out a writ of error to reverse the judgment.

There was no dispute about the circumstances of the murder, the question on the trial being as to the identity of the defendant as the murderer. The facts were testified to by Bert Deutsch, who was the only witness of the murder. He was a cigar maker, living at 4523 Calumet avenue, diagonally across the street from Grossfield's grocery store, at the southwest corner of Forty-Fifth street and Calumet avenue, where the tragedy occurred. He testified in chief that he went to the store about 7:05 o'clock on the morning of December 18, 1918, to buy a bottle of milk, and when he went near the counter he heard the command, ‘Hands up!’ and was covered by a gun in the hands of a man who held another gun pointed at Grossfield. No one else was present and the man was in the store before the witness. He ordered the witness back of the counter and demanded money of Grossfield, who was also back of the counter, but Grossfield said he had no money. The man continued to demand money from Grossfield, who pulled out some papers and then put them back in his pocket. The man then demanded money of the witness, who said: ‘You can have all I got; I ain't got anything.’ The man then felt the pockets of the witness and again asked Grossfield for money. Grossfield said he had none, and the man said, ‘What's the matter with the cash register?’ Grossfield went to the cash register and the man took the money and put it in his pocket and still kept asking for money, and Grossfield said he had none. The man then after some further discussion made a rush to the counter and pulled out the drawer and put his hand in it. He continued to argue with Grossfield and then turned around and started to walk out. Grossfield followed and took him by the coat collar and was holding him and would not let him loose. He pushed Grossfield, who was still hanging on. The witness, who was still behind the counter, heard three shots. The man had his hand down and fired three shots and pushed Grossfield, who still hung on. The man then shot Grossfield ‘straight’ and Grossfield fell. The witness estimated that the affair occupied about 10 minutes. He testified that he again saw the man at the inquest. He was asked whom he saw, and answered: ‘I think that man in there that was supposed to be there; that was there.’ He then identified the defendant as the man at the inquest, and testified that the man was brought down to the store a short time after the murder and was there seen by the witness.

The examination so far was conducted by the court with the consent of the state's attorney and the defendant. The witness was cross-examined first by counsel for the defendant, and testified that the defendant had ‘his [the murderer's] ways and his movements, but to swear positively that this is the man, I cannot do it’; that the defendant was brought to the store four or five days after the murder and the witness understood that he had confessed; that he would not swear positively that the defendant was the man; that he had also previously gone to the police station at Forty-Eighth street, where the defendant was confined, and picked out the defendant from several others as the man who committed the murder, identifying him by his size, actions, and ways; that he gave a description of the man to the police, describing him as being between five feet and six inches and five feet and seven inches tall, wearing a cap and dark brown coat, about 34 or 35 years of age, weighing about 150 pounds, and of dark complexion. The witness testified that on the occasion of the murder he was not wearing his glasses; that he could see a little without them but not very well. At the request of counsel he took off his glasses and was unable to see a pencil held by the counsel at a distance of from 15 to 18 feet. He testified that he had seen several doctors about his eyes and was in several clinics but had given them up. He did not remember whether there was a light in the store at the time of the murder or not. The witness was then cross-examined by the state's attorney, and testified that he did not remember making a positive identification of the defendant at the coroner's inquest, which was held on December 29, nor that he made a positive identification before the grand jury, but testified that he did then describe him by his size, his ways, movements, height, and weight. The witness testified he could read some without his glasses, and the man in the store was about 2 feet away at the time he felt the witness' pockets; that the man who committed the murder had on a gray cap and a dark coat, was about five feet seven inches tall, and weighed 145 to 148 pounds. He had a ‘kind of goat skin; it was quite a dead color; dark color; bad color.’ He was smooth shaven. After he left the store he went west on Forty-Fifth street. The witness gave the description to the police about noon or afternoon of the same day. In rebuttal the prosecution proved excerpts from the testimony of this witness at the coroner's inquest about which he had been asked on cross-examination, tending to show that he had positively identified the defendant at that time.

Two other witnesses testified on the question of identity. Mrs. Edward Thetard was at the corner of Forty-Fifth street and Calumet avenue when the shots were fired—across the street from the store. She heard three shots, and a moment later a man came from the store, turned up his collar, walked west on Forty-Fifth street to the end of the store, and then ‘ran to the left of the alley, turned down the alley, and went east.’ The man had on a dark overcoat, which was drawn in at the waist line and was about three-quarter length, and wore a lighter cap. He was five feet seven or eight inches tall. It was just breaking day. On cross-examination the witness testified that when she testified at the inquest she thought the accused was about two inches shorter than the man whom she saw leave the store. Plaintiff in error at the suggestion of his counsel put on a cap and coat which were his property, turned up his collar, and walked around at a distance of about 40 feet from the witness, and she testified that his figure resembled the man.

James A. Higgins testified that he was stockkeeper for the International Harvester Company tractor works and about 6 o'clock of the morning of December 18 he was at the corner of Forty-Fifth street and Calumet avenue, walking east across Calumet avenue to mail a letter in the mail box, and met a man who asked him as he passed, ‘About what time is it?’ Witness answered, ‘It is about [296 Ill. 273]6 o'clock,’ and did not stop. The man wore an overcoat and cap. The witness noticed nothing else at the time and noticed no peculiarity in the man's voice, but a few days later he was taken to the police station to identify the defendant and...