People v. Selknes
| Decision Date | 04 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 15291.,15291. |
| Citation | 140 N.E. 852,309 Ill. 113 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SELKNES. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Philip L. Sullivan, Judge.
Charles Selknes was convicted of murder, and brings error.
Affirmed.O'Brien, Prystalski & Owen, of Chicago, 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.
The plaintiff in error, Charles Selknes, was indicted, tried, found, guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 30 years for the murder of Boleslaw Abarowitz, by shooting him with a revolver.
The defendant and Abarowitz were Lithuanians, and partners in a business conducted in a building at Willow Springs, in Cook county, called Zenk's Hotel. In the front of the building, on the first floor, there was what the witnesses called a soft drink parlor, with a dining room back of it and kitchen in the rear. On the second floor there was a sort of parlor in front, and a hall and bedrooms back of it, occupied by the partners and the wife of Abarowitz and their five year old child, and others let out to transient roomers. John W. Rust, a doctor, lived two blocks from the place of business, and on November 28, 1921, between [309 Ill. 115]3 and 4 in the morning, he was called by telephone that there was trouble at the place; that the speaker had big trouble, and somebody was shot, and the doctor thought the voice was that of the defendant. John H. Banks, a merchant, had a store next to the building in question, with an alley between, and about the same time as the telephone call his mother called him and said that there was somebody hollering for help over there-hollering that they were shot. Banks got up, and went to the building, and met the defendant, and asked him if he had sent for a doctor, and the defendant said that he had. Banks ran to the doctor's house and pounded on the door, while the doctor was dressing. The doctor and Banks went to the building and found the defendant in the saloon. He asked the doctor if he could not do something to help him. The doctor and Banks went upstairs and found Abarowitz in a room, with the door barricaded with the bed. They asked him to open the door, and after some words he did so. The doctor examined him and found five bullet wounds and a large pool of blood on the floor. The blood on the floor and on the wounds was clotted, showing that the shooting had been two or three hours before.
The doctor testified that Banks and Mrs. Abarowitz went upstairs with him, and the defendant appeared shortly after, and was in the hallway after the doctor got into the room. The doctor asked Abarowitz how it happened, and he said, in the presence of the defendant, who was standing in the doorway:
The doctor testified that, when Abarowitz said Charlie shot him, he said, ‘You don't mean your partner, do you?’ and he said, ‘Yes; he wants my wife and my money, and he wants me out of the way.’ The doctor's testimony was that Abarowitz knew everything he was saying and his mind was clear. The wounds were made with 38-caliber bullets.
The doctor was president of the village board, and Banks testified that he suggested that he should go after William Laatz, a village trustee, and that he went after him, as he thought, 10 or 15 minutes after he got to the building. Laatz testified that Banks came after him about 4:30 in the morning, but he did not know the exact time; that when he got to the place the defendant and Mrs. Abarowitz were in the kitchen; that the defendant told him they had a little trouble there a couple of weeks ago with some Mexicans, and he thought a Mexican shot Bill (a name by which Abarowitz was ordinarily called); that he went upstairs and found Abarowitz in bed, and he threw back the bedclothes and showed where he was shot. Laatz told the defendant it looked bad, and asked him if he had a gun, and the defendant said he had one in his room, under his pillow. They went up to the room and found a revolver of 32-caliber, and Laatz arrested the defendant, took him to the station, and locked him up. After the arrest of the defendant, Laatz went back to the place and made a thorough search of the premises, after which he went down in the basement and found a place where there was fresh earth, and digging there he found buried in the sand a 38-caliber revolver, a box of 38-cartridges, and with them a 32-caliber cartridge, which showed marks of being struck by a revolver hammer, but had not exploded. There were two empty chambers in the revolver, two empty shells, and two loaded cartridges.
At the instance of Dr. Rust, Abarowitz was taken to the Jefferson Park Hospital at about 7:30 in the morning. Dr. Ira R. Robertson, a surgeon at the hospital, testified that he examined Abarowitz about 8:30, and found him suffering from internal hemorrhage from gunshot wounds, and found a perforation through the liver, a perforation through the first part of the small bowel, and other wounds. The doctor said that he found Abarowitz in a serious condition, and did not think he was going to live very long, but did not remember whether he told the man that or not. He said that he told him he was very sick, and would either have to be operated on or he was going to die; that if he was not operated on he was going to die sure, and he said he wanted to be operated on. The doctor said he operated, and the operation was concluded about 10 o'clock, but he did not remember the exact time. Abarowitz died about 1:30 p. m. of the same day. Mrs. Abarowitz, with the child, went to the hospital, but there is no further evidence concerning her being there.
Otto W. Christopher, an assistant state's attorney, testified that he left the office of the state's attorney about 10 o'clock, and went to the hospital, and there wrote a dying declaration, which was signed by Abarowitz. Christopher and Loine Hawthorne, the X-ray operator at the hospital, signed the dying declaration as witnesses, and there were repeated lengthy examinations of them on the question of the admissibility in evidence of the declaration. Christopher testified that he asked for the man who was dying; that the nurse told him that Abarowitz was dying, and he was directed to the room where Abarowitz was; that he told him that he represented the state's attorney, and came to find out who shot him, and to get a statement from him; that he told Abarowitz that he was very sick, and was about to die, and asked him if he knew he was going to die, and Abarowitz said he did,-that he was not going to live very long. Hawthorne testified that Abarowitz was dying, and he and Christopher both informed him of that fact, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Caldwell
... ... 1940.) This rule has been applied in Illinois to sustain the denial of a general motion for suppression of evidence parts of which were clearly competent (People v. Exum, 382 Ill. 204, 210, 47 N.E.2d 56; People v. Reid, 336 Ill. 421, 425, 168 N.E. 344; People v. Selknes, 309 Ill. 113, 119--120, 140 N.E. 852), and the ruling of the trial judge here was proper. In view of the time at which the objection of no proper foundation was made, and the defendant's failure to specify which part of the offer of proof was incompetent, we do not believe that it can fairly be ... ...
-
State v. Minton
... ... Waller v. People, 209 Ill. 284, 70 N.E. 681; State v. Rounds, 104 Vt. 442, 160 A. 249. See, also, in this connection: State v. Peterson, supra; State v. McKinnon, ... State, 73 Fla. 1198, 75 So. 785; People v. Sullivan, 345 Ill. 87, 177 N.E. 733; People v. Kircher, 309 Ill. 500, 141 N.E. 151; People v. Selknes, 309 Ill. 113, 140 N.E. 852; State v. Green, 115 La. 1041, 40 So. 451 ... 2. The State elicited from the defendant Bullis on his ... ...
-
People v. Bernette
... ... While defendant's possession of the gun, or lack of it, is a proper factor to be considered in determining its admissibility into evidence, (see: People v. Selknes, 309 Ill. 113, 140 N.E. 852; People v. Berkman, 307 Ill. 492, 139 N.E. 91,) possession is neither the sole test nor an absolute essential. Rather, as we pointed out in People v. Jones, 22 Ill.2d 592, 599, 177 N.E.2d 112, 116; 'The basic problem is one of relevance,' and a gun 'is relevant if there ... ...
- People v. Wilson