People v. Seno

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDAILY
CitationPeople v. Seno, 177 N.E.2d 843, 23 Ill.2d 206 (Ill. 1961)
Decision Date22 September 1961
Docket NumberNo. 35850,35850
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Fred A. SENO, Plaintiff in Error.

Thomas H. Morsch, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Gallagher and James R. Thompson, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

DAILY, Justice.

At a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County the defendant, Fred A. Seno, was adjudged guilty of armed robbery and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than ten years nor more than life. Upon writ of error defendant contends that certain alleged confessions and a revolver were improperly received in evidence, and that his guilt was not established beyond all reasonable doubt.

Shortly before 9:00 P.M. on the evening of November 11, 1958, a man armed with a gun entered an A & P Company store at 1148 West Ontario, Oak Park, Illinois, and in the presence of the employees, took the money from a cash register and office cash drawer before fleeing the premises. A few minutes later defendant's automobile crashed into a tree while attempting to negotiate a curve at high speed a few blocks from the scene of the crime, and he was apprehended by the Oak Park police in a basement hallway a short distance away.

At the trial of the cause, John Sittler, the assistant store manager, and Maxine Rowland, the cash register operator, both identified defendant as the robber although they differed slightly as to his apparel. Sittler said the man was wearing glasses and a hat, and that his overcoat collar was turned up, whereas Rowland was of the opinion that he was wearing a cap, was without glasses, and had his coat collar turned down. Sittler also testified he was later called to the scene of the automobile accident to identify defendant, at which time defendant replied 'Yes' when asked by the arresting officers if Sittler was the man he had robbed. This witness further related that at a preliminary hearing held in the municipal court of Oak Park on November 13, 1958, the complaint, order for warrant, and order fixing bail were read to the defendant after which the latter replied 'Yes.'

John Schatz, an Oak Park police officer, testified that at about 8:45 P.M. on the evening of the robbery he observed defendant's automobile pull away from the curb directly behind the A & P Company store and accelerate to a speed of seventy or seventy-five miles per hour. Schatz gave chase but, in attempting to negotiate a turn, defendant's automobile crashed into a tree and the driver ran into a nearby apartment building.

Another Oak Park policeman, Louis Case, told of arriving at the scene of the accident a few minutes after it had occurred and of finding defendant crouched in the basement hallway of a nearby apartment house. According to his account, some two hundred sixteen dollars were found on defendant's person, and the defendant, upon seeing John Sittler, the assistant store manager, said: 'This is the man I held up.' Later, while examining the wrecked auto, the witness was handed a pistol by Richard Samuels, a River Forest police officer who had also responded to the robbery report. Samuels had removed the pistol, in Case's presence, from the front floor of the automobile.

Testifying in his own behalf, defendant stated that he had been drinking the night of the robbery, and that he had just left a restaurant near the A & P store when an unidentified person flashed a spotlight upon him and commenced shouting. Being afraid, defendant attempted to escape in his automobile but crashed into a tree a short distance away, thereafter losing consciousness. He denied having a gun, that he had been at the A & P store upon the night of the robbery, or that he had admitted his guilt at the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
9 cases
  • People v. Nicholls
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1969
    ...at trial and under these circumstances it must be held that the direction of the statute, if applicable, was waived. See People v. Seno, 23 Ill.2d 206, 177 N.E.2d 843; People v. Hubbard, 38 Ill.2d 104, 230 N.E.2d All of the witnesses to Nicholls' written confession testified at the trial co......
  • People v. Sims
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1965
    ...waives his right to complain of the admission of that evidence. (People v. Williams, 28 Ill.2d 114, 190 N.E.2d 809; People v. Seno, 23 Ill.2d 206, 177 N.E.2d 843; People v. Villalobos, 20 Ill.2d 315, 169 N.E.2d 745.) These cases cannot be distinguished. In Williams, a police officer testifi......
  • People v. DiGerlando, 37953
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 18, 1964
    ...and especially since the other confessions did also disclose his guilt. (People v. Pelkola, 19 Ill.2d 156, 166 N.E.2d 54; People v. Seno, 23 Ill.2d 206, 177 N.E.2d 843; People v. DuPree, 26 Ill.2d 320, 186 N.E.2d 237.) Therefore, it is our conclusion that the confessions were properly admit......
  • People v. Hubbard
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1967
    ...waived his right under the statutory requirement and cannot for the first time raise the issue in a reviewing court. People v. Seno, 23 Ill.2d 206, 177 N.E.2d 843. Notwithstanding the admissibility of the confession, however, we are of the opinion that it was not sufficiently corroborated t......
  • Get Started for Free