People v. Swift
| Decision Date | 03 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 16898.,16898. |
| Citation | 150 N.E. 263,319 Ill. 359 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SWIFT et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Fulton County; Willis F. Graham, Judge.
Clifton Swift and another were convicted of robbery and they bring error.
Affirmed.George W. Sprenger, of Peoria, for plaintiffs in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., G. Ray Senift, State's Atty., of Canton, Edward C. Fitch, of Springfield, and C. E. Chiperfield and B. M. Chiperfield, both of Canton, for the People.
Plaintiffs in error, with Faustino Guerrero, were indicted by the grand jury of Fulton county on the charge of robbing the People's State Bank of Vermont, Ill. The indictment consisted of eight counts. Certain counts were quashed on motion, and on a ruling to elect the people chose to go to trial on the first, second, sixth, and seventh counts. The substance of these counts is robbery of the bank with a gun, and assault with a gun upon the cashier, Ross Mercer, and robbing him of the sum of $1,000 of the money of the bank. Guerrero was not tried. Plaintiffs in error were convicted and bring the cause here for review, assigning numerous errors. About 2 o'clock p. m. on November 24, 1924, three men appeared on Main street, in Vermont, in an automobile. They stopped the car about a half block from the People's State Bank. Two of the men got out and entered the bank with drawn revolvers and ordered those present to throw up their hands. Both men were unmasked. Those in the bank at the time were Ross Mercer, the cashier, his sister, Blanche Mercer, and Harry Chick, teller. While the bandits were in the bank, Mrs. Jennie Moorehouse, a patron of the bank, came in. Ross Mercer, Blanche Mercer, Harry Chick, and Mrs. Moorehouse were all ordered to enter the vault of the bank. Thereafter the bandits rified the safe and took something over $2,200 in money and over $125,000 in Liberty bonds and other negotiable securities. Plaintiff in error Morgan was identified by the bank teller, Harry Chick, and Mrs. Moorehouse. Mercer, the cashier, and Blanche Mercer, identified plaintiff in error Swift as the man who ordered them to put up their hands and ordered them into the vault.
A number of witnesses testified that a car was seen standing within a half block of the bank during the time of the robbery, with the motor running, and that a man was in the car. A few days thereafter an automobile belonging to Fred Brewer, of LaSalle, Ill., was found abandoned on the streets of the city of Peoria. Detective Fred Montgomery, of Peoria, testified that upon examining the car he found some tools, a money wrapper with a $500 sign on it, and an envelope bearing the name of the People's State Bank of Vermont. It appeared in evidence, also, that this car had been stolen from Brewer in LaSalle a few days before that time. The state's evidence also is that Swift and Morgan registered at one of the hotels in LaSalle on the night of the theft of the automobile.
On November 27 several police officers of Peoria arrested plaintiff in error and Guerrero at the residence of Grace Crosley, in the city of Peoria. Several officers were stationed about the house. The testimony of Officer Montgomery is that when he entered the house Swift ran into a bedroom with a gun in his hand, and that a revolver was later found under the bathtub in the bathroom adjoining. Swift attempted to climb out of one of the windows, but was stopped by one of the officers outside. Swift and Morgan were later identified by the officers of the bank and Mrs. Moorehouse at the jail in the city of Peoria. Several hundred dollars were found in the possession of Morgan, and some days later Grace Crosley called up the police station in Peoria and informed the police officers that she had discovereda roll of bills in a drawer in the bedroom into which Swift had disappeared as the officers entered the house. She testified that the room had not been used and that the money did not belong to her. Swift later made a confession to the sheriff of Fulton county and gave information by which $127,000 in Liberty bonds and other negotiable securities were recovered in a cornfield not far from Vermont. During the selection of the jury to try the cause, and after three jurors had been accepted by both sides, plaintiffs in error moved for the return of the money taken from Morgan and Grace Crosley on the ground of illegal search and seizure, and the motion also prayed the suppression of the mone as evidence. The court denied the motion for return of the money.
Counsel for plaintiffs in error on the trial of the cause also objected to testimony of the sheriff of Fulton county concerning the confession made by Swift, on the ground that it was not voluntary, but was made under promise of leniency by a deputy sheriff, a son of the sheriff. On examination of witnesses pertaining to this statement, out of the presence of the jury, Swift testified that the son of the sheriff told him that if he would take a plea of guilty he could probably get a sentence of from one to 14 years. He admitted, however, that the state's attorney was present at the time his statement was made and told him that no promise would be made and that anything that he said would be used against him. Both the sheriff and his son deny emphatically that any promise whatever was made, and the court overruled the objection to the evidence concerning this confession, but as the testimony showed it was made out of the presence of the codefendant, Morgan, it was limited in its admission to Swift, only.
Plaintiffs in errors' principal contentions are: First, that the court erred in refusing to order the return of the money; second, in admitting the confession fo Swft; thd, in admitting evidence of the theft of the car in LaSalle; and fourth, in giving erroneous instructions to the jury. It is also urged as error that the state's attorney made prejudicial remarks in argument of the jury.
[1][2] Concerning the first objection, plaintiff in error Morgan contends that he was illegally searched by the officers without a search warrant, and that the court should therefore have ordered a return of the money. The evidence of the state is that the plaintiffs in error were arrested on suspicion that they were involved in the bank robbery and that the officers searched both men when they arrested them. It is the rule in this state, and generally, that, where an arrest is made by an officer who has reasonable ground for believing that the person arrested is implicated in a crime, such officer has a right to arrest without a warrant and to search the person arrested without a search warrant. Lynn v. People, 170 Ill. 527, 48 N. E. 964;North v. People, 139 Ill. 81, 28 N. E. 966;Gindrat v. People, 138 Ill....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Talley
...exists where potential alibi witnesses are interjected into the case by the defendant but are not produced at trial. (People v. Swift (1925), 319 Ill. 359, 150 N.E. 263; People v. Eddington (1984), 129 Ill.App.3d 745, 777, 84 Ill.Dec. 887, 909, 473 N.E.2d 103, 125, and cases cited therein.)......
-
People v. Abadia
...... People v. Armstead, 322 Ill.App.3d 1, 15, 254 Ill.Dec. 973, 748 N.E.2d 691, 703 (2001), citing People v. Weinstein, 35 Ill.2d 467, 470, 220 N.E.2d 767 N.E.2d 351 432, 434 (1966) and People v. Swift, 319 Ill. 359, 365-66, 150 N.E. 263, 266 (1925); People v. Millighan, Ill.App.3d 967, 971, 265 Ill.App.3d 967, 638 N.E.2d 1150, 1154, 203 Ill.Dec. 24 (1994); People v. Berry, 264 Ill.App.3d 773, 780, 205 Ill.Dec. 190, 642 N.E.2d 1307, 1314 (1994) ; see also People v. Coulson, 13 Ill.2d 290, ......
-
People v. Bobe, 1-89-0878
...726]; People v. Munday, 280 Ill. 32 [117 N.E. 286]; People v. Smith, 74 Ill.App.2d 458, 463-64 [221 N.E.2d 68]; but see People v. Swift, 319 Ill. 359, 365-366 [150 N.E. 263]; People v. Smith, 105 Ill.App.2d 8, 11-12 [245 N.E.2d 23]; People v. Sanford, 100 Ill.App.2d 101, 104-05 [241 N.E.2d ......
-
People v. Eddington
...v. Gray (1964), 52 Ill.App.2d 177, 201 N.E.2d 756, rev'd on other grounds (1965), 33 Ill.2d 160, 210 N.E.2d 486; People v. Swift (1925), 319 Ill. 359, 150 N.E. 263; People v. Anthony (1976), 41 Ill.App.3d 1025, 355 N.E.2d 218.) This exception does not apply when the existence of potential w......