People v. Urban
| Decision Date | 17 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 26751.,26751. |
| Citation | 44 N.E.2d 885,381 Ill. 64 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. URBAN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Stanley H. Klarkowski, Judge.
Wincel Urban was convicted of burglary, and he brings error.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial.Wm. Scoot Stewart, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty. of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, and Joseph Pope, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Wincel Urban, and codefendants, Stanley Warwick, Emil Weis and Earl Nelson, were jointly indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for the burglary of a meat market. It does not appear that Warwick was apprehended. The indictment was dismissed as to Nelson prior to the trial. Weis was granted a separate trial but later the indictment was nollied as to him. After motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, plaintiff in error was committed to the Illinois State Penitentiary for the statutory indeterminate term.
The burglary occurred between the hours of 7 p. m. Saturday, August 3, 1940, and 8 p. m. the following day. Entrance to the market was gained through an outer door which had been fastened by a Segal lock. The lock was detached from the door and stolen. A safe was burglarized and some insurance papers, $180 in cash and a strongbox which formed one of the compartments of the safe were also stolen. The strongbox was fastened with a combination lock and contained about $80 in cash. On August 5, the Segal lock and the strongbox, with the contents intact, were found in a garage located to the rear of a hotel on Cornell avenue.
The only evidence connecting plaintiff in error with the burglary are the circumstances hereinafter related as to his connection with the rental of the garage where the stolen property was found, his going to the garage and unlocking it and the possession of a key that fit the Segal lock.
Margaret Grant, the manager of the hotel, testified that on August 4, two men came to the hotel and made inquiry relative to the renting of the garage. Her conversation was with a man who gave the name of Nelson and said he resided at a number directly across the street from the hotel. She issued a receipt to Nelson for the rental paid. A man by the name of Nelson was taken into custody, but she could not identify him as the one from whom she received the rental money. Her identification of plaintiff in error as the other party was positive and she testified that when she and Nelson were discussing terms of rental and the price, plaintiff in error commented that the rental was high.
On the morning of August 5, Mrs. Grant was advised by one of her employees that men were seen going into the garage the preceding day and acting on such information, she unlocked the garage door with a master key and seeing articles which she suspected of being burglarious tools, notified the police. They found the Segal lock and the strongbox which had not been opened. In addition the following were found with the stolen articles, three revolvers, a small bottle of nitroglycerin, percussion caps, and a black bag containing an electric drill, wires, bars, flashlight, pipe, soap and cotton padding. The police officers secreted themselves in a garage nearby and about 8:30 o'clock that evening, plaintiff in error and Weis came to the garage. The police testified that plaintiff in error produced a key with which he unlocked the garage door and that Weis entered and as he turned to come out the officers placed both under arrest. The police obtained three keys from plaintiff in error, one of which fit the lock on the garage door, another opened the Segal lock and the third was not identified as fitting any lock.
Weis, called as a witness on behalf of the State, testified he was an expert safe, lock and vault repairman, that he had several years of experience and had been employed for long periods of time by the leading safe and vault companies doing business in Chicago. He stated that about 6:30 on the evening of August 5, he was at home and received a telephone call, that pursuant to the call he met plaintiff in error at the intersection of Fifty-fifth street and Lake Park avenue, which was about twelve blocks from his home, that while he was waiting at the intersection plaintiff in error approached and inquired if he was Weis and being informed that it was Weis, plaintiff in error told him that the safe was in a garage and that they would go see if ‘the fellow was there.’ They got in Weis' car and drove about one-half a block when plaintiff in error told Weis to wait and he would see if the ‘fellow was there.’ Weis testified to becoming ill during plaintiff in error's absence and stated that after plaintiff in error returned he said: ‘The man is there,’ and the two proceeded up the alley to the garage; that he thought plaintiff in error had a key but he was not sure; that he went into the garage first and plaintiff in error followed, and that immediately the police arrested them. Weis denied any previous acquaintance with plaintiff in error but the evidence of plaintiff in error and other witnesses casts doubt upon the truthfulness of such statement.
Plaintiff in error testified that he came to Chicago a few weeks previous to his arrest, that soon after arrival he formed an acquaintance with Weis and that they planned going into the business of buying and selling used safes. Weis was to procure an agency with a safe company and through this means was to locate persons who had used safes for sale and was to learn of prospective buyers. Plaintiff in error was to buy and sell the safes which Weis located. He stated he had made many trips to various places in Chicago with Weis in receiving instructions in reference to the proposed business venture. Weis corroborates plaintiff in error in that he went to some of the places named...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barber
...313 N.E.2d 491 ... 20 Ill.App.3d 977 ... PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... August Urban BARBER, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 72--92 ... Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District ... July 1, 1974 ... Ralph Ruebner, Richard Wilson, Elgin, for defendant-appellant ... [20 Ill.App.3d 978] Gerry L. Dondanville, State's Atty., Geneva, Clarence ... ...
-
People v. Klausing, 74--378
...Ill. 270, 2 N.E.2d 80. Before the inference may arise, the possession must be recent, unexplained, personal and exclusive, People v. Urban, 381 Ill. 64, 44 N.E.2d 885; People v. Blades, 329 Ill. 182, 160 N.E. 190, and '* * * with a distinct implied or express assertion of ownership. A mere ......
-
People v. Moody
...to find the proper connection with the crime. No such technical skills were involved here. Nor do we find comparable People v. Urban (1942), 381 Ill. 64, 44 N.E.2d 885, also cited by defendant, where burglary tools were found not at the scene of the burglary but in a garage which the court ......
-
People v. Johnson
...burglary was committed and that defendant was found to have burglary tools in his possession shortly thereafter. People v. Urban, 381 Ill. 64, 68, 44 N.E.2d 885, 143 A.L.R. 1194; Williams v. People, 196 Ill. 173, 63 N.E. in Mary Lund testified that after she became aware of the burglary, sh......