People v. Stringer, 43847
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | UNDERWOOD; WARD |
| Citation | 289 N.E.2d 631,52 Ill.2d 564 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Arthur STRINGER et al., Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 43847,43847 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1972 |
Page 631
v.
Arthur STRINGER et al., Appellants.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1972.
Page 632
Howard T. Savage, Chicago (Howard O. Edmonds, Evanston, of counsel), for appellants.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert A. Novelle and James E. Sternik, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
[52 Ill.2d 565] UNDERWOOD, Chief Justice.
A Cook County circuit court jury found defendants, Arthur Stringer and Richard Taylor, guilty of murder and armed robbery, and each was sentenced to a term of 50 to 100 years imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed (People v. Stringer, 129 Ill.App.2d 251, 264 N.E.2d 31), and we granted leave to appeal. We affirm.
Defendants urge that the pretrial confrontation between defendants and the identifying witnesses was so unnecessarily suggestive as to violate due process, that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the refusal to give defendants' jury instruction on identification was prejudicial error.
At approximately 5:15 A.M. on July 16, 1966, Henry J. Dority was robbed at his newsstand at the southeast corner of the intersection of 53rd Street and Indiana Avenue in Chicago, and then fatally shot as he pursued the two assailants west on 53rd Street. The following November, Perry Smith and Carl Dunbar, who allegedly witnessed the incident, identified defendants as the offenders through police photographs, with Dunbar recognizing only Taylor. Subsequently on November 14, 1966, the defendants, who had been incarcerated under unrelated indictments, were placed in a six-man lineup and again identified by the two witnesses. Thereafter in a detention room the defendants were informed by Officers Fitzgerald and Marin that they had been identified in connection with a murder and robbery; whereupon, according to the officers, Stringer shouted, 'Okay, okay, I killed him, let's get it over with,' and also stated that he had used a .32 automatic pistol which he had left with a friend whose identity he refused to disclose. When inquiry was made as to the amount of money taken, Stringer asked Taylor, 'How much did we get,' but received no answer. Stringer refused to give a written statement.
[52 Ill.2d 566] The defendants filed pretrial motions to suppress Stringer's oral statement and to suppress the identification testimony of the witnesses to the lineup. The former motion was denied except as to that portion relating to Taylor. The motion to suppress identification testimony was denied. The defendants' first contention is that the surrounding circumstances establish that the pretrial lineup confrontation between themselves and the witnesses was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to mistaken identification as to be a denial of due process, and that the opportunity for State's witness Perry Smith to view the offenders at the scene of the crime was not of sufficient adequacy to establish an independent origin for Smith's in-court identification of the defendants.
Page 633
The record indicates that the four individuals who appeared in the lineup with the defendants were from narcotics court, were slovenly dressed, had long hair, looked like 'whiskey heads,' and were variously estimated to range in height from 5 feet 4 inches to 5 feet 11 inches. The defendants were neatly dressed, had short haircuts and were about 6 feet tall. Defendant Stringer testified that prior to the lineup he saw two individuals, whom he subsequently learned were Smith and Dunbar, look into the room where he and Taylor were seated handcuffed to chairs. Dunbar, who was called by the defense at trial, testified that just prior to the lineup he and Smith were taken past a room and saw the backs of two men whom a police officer identified as the defendants. Officer Marin testified that he and Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McTush, 78-725
...by a single witness, who had ample opportunity for observation, will be sufficient to sustain the conviction. (People v. Stringer (1972), 52 Ill.2d 564, 289 N.E.2d 631.) The conviction will stand even though the testimony of the identification witness is contradicted by the defendant's alib......
-
People v. Johnson, 60826
...222, 226, 10 Ill.Dec. 213, 367 N.E.2d 666; People v. Jones (1975), 60 Ill.2d 300, 307-08, 325 N.E.2d 601; People v. Stringer (1972), 52 Ill.2d 564, 569, 289 N.E.2d In an attempt to discredit Payne's positive identification of him, defendant calls to our attention two purported discrepancies......
-
People v. Carlson, 50890
...of these witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimonies were properly determined by the jury. (People v. Stringer (1972), 52 Ill.2d 564, 568, 289 N.E.2d 631.) We will not reverse a conviction unless the evidence is so improbable as to justify a reasonable doubt of the defendant's......
-
People v. Nichols, s. 57102
...is credible and the accused is Page 191 viewed under circumstances which would permit a positive identification. (People v. Stringer, 52 Ill.2d 564, 289 N.E.2d 631; People v. Stewart, 24 Ill.App.3d 605, 321 N.E.2d 450; People v. Smith, 18 Ill.App.3d 859, 310 N.E.2d 734.) Our courts often sa......
-
People v. McTush, 78-725
...by a single witness, who had ample opportunity for observation, will be sufficient to sustain the conviction. (People v. Stringer (1972), 52 Ill.2d 564, 289 N.E.2d 631.) The conviction will stand even though the testimony of the identification witness is contradicted by the defendant's alib......
-
People v. Johnson, 60826
...222, 226, 10 Ill.Dec. 213, 367 N.E.2d 666; People v. Jones (1975), 60 Ill.2d 300, 307-08, 325 N.E.2d 601; People v. Stringer (1972), 52 Ill.2d 564, 569, 289 N.E.2d In an attempt to discredit Payne's positive identification of him, defendant calls to our attention two purported discrepancies......
-
People v. Carlson, 50890
...of these witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimonies were properly determined by the jury. (People v. Stringer (1972), 52 Ill.2d 564, 568, 289 N.E.2d 631.) We will not reverse a conviction unless the evidence is so improbable as to justify a reasonable doubt of the defendant's......
-
People v. Nichols, s. 57102
...is credible and the accused is Page 191 viewed under circumstances which would permit a positive identification. (People v. Stringer, 52 Ill.2d 564, 289 N.E.2d 631; People v. Stewart, 24 Ill.App.3d 605, 321 N.E.2d 450; People v. Smith, 18 Ill.App.3d 859, 310 N.E.2d 734.) Our courts often sa......