People v. Setzke, 35862
| Citation | 22 Ill.2d 582,177 N.E.2d 168 |
| Decision Date | 22 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35862,35862 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Richard T. SETZKE, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Melvin L. Goldman, 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.
By indictments in the criminal court of Cook County, Richard T. Setzke was charged with armed robbery and burglary. He was tried before the court without a jury, found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for concurrent terms of not less than one year nor more than five. He brings the record here for review by writ of error, contending that the evidence was insufficient and that he was unduly limited in his efforts to show the extent of the bitter feeling toward him on the part of the complaining witness.
The evidence on behalf of the prosecution showed that about 1:30 A.M. on December 21, 1957, one Michael Kowalski, a taxicab driver, was sitting in his taxi waiting for a fare at 47th Street and Ashland Avenue in Chicago when a man entered the cab and directed him to drive to 7135 South Hoyne. Upon arrival at that destination the passenger pointed a gun at Kowalski, ordered him into the rear seat and made him lie on the floor. His hands were the taped together. After taking Kowalski's blue jacket, which had been lying on the front seat, the man drove the cab away. After driving for some five minutes he stopped the car, left it for a short time, and then drove on for a few more blocks. He stopped a second time, whereupon he took Kowalski's wallet containing about $18 and again left the cab. This time he did not return. Kowalski broke loose, and found himself on Wood Street between 76th and 77th Streets. He later identified the defendant, at a show-up and in the courtroom, as the man who had robbed him.
Defendant's father-in-law, William Santoli, is the complainant on the burglary charge. He resides at 2062 West 76th Street. About 2 o'clock the same morning he was awakened by a knocking at his door. From the window of his second floor bedroom he saw a taxicab out in front and a man on his doorstep wearing a blue coat or jacket. The man, who was holding something up to his face, said that somebody had called a cab. Santoli replied that no one there had called a cab, whereupon the man went back to the cab and left. Santoli testified and as the man turned to leave he got into the light of a street lamp, and that he recognized the man as the defendant.
Santoli further testified that about two hours later he was awakened again, this time by the noise of glass breaking. When he went downstairs he could see a light was on in the basement. Someone was pounding at the door which led from the basement to the kitchen, and Santoli went toward it to make sure it was locked. A number of shots were then fired through the door from the other side, whereupon Santoli retreated to a position behind the refrigerator. This was in a direct line with the door, a point from which Santoli, who had armed himself with a revolver, 'would be ready' for the intruder. The door proved too much for the burglar, however, and he went back outside through the rear basement door. In the meantime Santoli had climbed upon a chair from which he could see through the window over the kitchen sink. From his vantage point he presently observed the intruder come out in a stooping position, and make a right angle turn. When he turned, the light from the basement window struck the side of his face and Santoli recognized him as the defendant. The defendant started running, and Santoli then fired shots at him. Later the police were called.
Evidence on behalf of defendant showed that he was separated from his wife, and that her father, Santoli, exhibited a good deal of animosity toward him. Defendant resided with his parents and brother at 5011 South Damen Avenue in Chicago. He was employed by the Grand Trunk Western Railroad as a yard clerk, working from 3 to 11 o'clock P.M. His father was retired, having been employed by American Bank Note Company for some 37 years. His mother was employed by a chocolate company, her hours of work being from 3:30 P.M. to midnight. According to testimony by defendant and his parents, he arrived home from work around midnight on December 20,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smallwood
...identification of the accused, even though the alibi testimony may be given by a greater number of witnesses. (People v. Setzke (1961), 22 Ill.2d 582, 586, 177 N.E.2d 168.) Accordingly, we do not find the evidence presented against defendants so improbable as to raise a reasonable doubt as ......
-
People v. Nolden
...identification of a defendant even if the alibi testimony is presented through a greater number of witnesses. (People v. Setzke (1961), 22 Ill.2d 582, 177 N.E.2d 168; People v. Bullock (1977), 51 Ill.App.3d 149, 9 Ill.Dec. 218, 366 N.E.2d 475.) It is the jury's function, as trier of fact, t......
-
People v. Speck
...is made a guilty verdict may be sustained notwithstanding there may be otherwise uncontradicted alibi evidence. (People v. Setzke, 22 Ill.2d 582, 177 N.E.2d 168; People v. Lamphear, 6 Ill.2d 346, 128 N.E.2d 892.) We hold that the positive identification, the fingerprints, the evidence of de......
-
People v. Brown
...testimony. We cannot overturn the verdict of the jury simply because the evidence presented to it was conflicting. People v. Setzke (1961), 22 Ill.2d 582, 586, 177 N.E.2d 168; People v. Fort (1958),14 Ill.2d 491, 499, 153 N.E.2d It is our conclusion that the evidence presented to the jury w......