People v. Wagman
| Decision Date | 19 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 15530.,15530. |
| Citation | 311 Ill. 330,142 N.E. 743 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WAGMAN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Philip S. Sullivan, Judge.
Max Wagman was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
James J. Barbour, of Chicago, and Otis F. Glenn, of Murphysboro, for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, and Clyde C. Fisher, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Max Wagman (hereafter called defendant), was indicted in the criminal court of Cook county jointly with Edward Kosnick, Jack Kral, Stanley Machowiec, and Edward Mazurka. The first count charged the accused with robbery of Edward Alberti of a large amount of money and jewelry, and that at the time they were armed with a pistol. The second count charges the same persons with receiving stolen property. Defendant was tried alone, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of receiving stolen property, and finding the value of the property received to be $12,816.06 and defendant's age to be 44 years. Motions for a new trial and in arrest were overruled, and judgment and sentence pronounced on the verdict.
Defendant urges, as grounds for reversal of the judgment, that the court erred in admitting evidence of other robberies than the one charged in the indictment; that the court erred in not requiring the people to elect on which count they would prosecute; that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the verdict; that the court gave improper instructions for the people; and the state's attorney was guilty of improper conduct.
April 15, 1922, defendant purchased the leasehold and furniture of the Monroe Apartments, at the corner of Monroeand Paulina streets, in Chicago. The building contains six flats, of seven rooms each. Defendant and his wife lived in part of the building and rented part of it to others. There was a common reception room, which was for the use of the occupants of the building, and a telephone line and signal board operated from the reception room. Different people or families occupied parts of the building at different times. Prior to his purchase of the Monroe Apartments defendant and his wife operated the Curtis Gardens, at 1100 West Madison street, which had previously been run as a saloon, restaurant, and cabaret. They lived over the Gardens and had a bartender named Long, with whom Edward Kosnick and Jack Kral were acquainted. They met defendant in September, 1921. Some time afterwards Kosnick worked for defendant and stayed generally at his place but testified he was not paid for his work, which appears to have been intermittent. Kral also went to live at defendant's in April, 1922. Edward Alberti was the proprietor of a jewelry store located at 1246 Milwaukee avenue, in Chicago, on May 10, 1922. At about 9:30 o'clock A. M. the people in the store were made by robbers to lie on the floor and the store was robbed of $1,000 in money and a large amount of jewelry. Kosnick, Kral, Machowiec, and Mazurka, besides being identified as the robbers, admitted that they committed the robbery. They testified on behalf of the people that Kral was serving an indeterminate term in the penitentiary at Joliet on another charge, and there were several indictments against him and Kosnick, Machowiec, and Mazurka for burglary and robbery.
The assistant state's attorney who tried this case testified he told them if they would become witnesses for the people and tell the truth he would permit them to plead guilty to grand larceny and take a sentence from one to ten years, instead of from ten years to life if they were tried and convicted of robbery with a gun. They agreed to do so, and testified they committed the Alberti robbery and sold the property to defendant for $1,000. They also testified to robbing a man named Heard, in November, 1921, of $3,000 worth of property, a man named Gorecki, in February, 1922, of $4,500 worth of property, and a man named Nerad, in April, 1922, of $6,000 worth of property all or most of which they sold to defendant for a small fraction of its value. Kosnick testified defendant told them, when he was operating the Curtis Gardens, that he would buy any property they could procure by theft or robbery, and all four of them testified that defendant advised and encouraged them to rob and bring the plunder to him for sale, and sometimes he furnished them a gun or guns to aid in the robbery. He furnished them with one or two guns at the time they robbed the Alberti store, and they testified he knew they were going to commit the robbery. Shortly prior to the robbery of the Alberti store Kosnick or Kral (probably Kosnick) had taken a watch of defendant's to Alberti's store for repair. When they entered the store on the morning of the robbery Kosnick called for the watch, for which he had a ticket, and it was given him. As he took the money out of his pocket to pay for it he produced a gun and commanded, ‘Hands up!’ Kral testified the purpose of taking the watch to the jewelry store for repair was to enable them to look the place over for the purpose of robbery. When they went to commit the robbery Kosnick was to get the watch before they robbed the place. They committed the robbery in a few minutes, the details of which they gave in full, as well as did Alberti and his employees, but it is not necessary here to state them. They went from the store, after the robbery, direct to defendant, and three of them went into his house. The chauffeur drove the car away to get rid of it. They asked defendant to give them $1,500 for the jewelry but finally sold it to him for $1,000. They testified, or some of them did, they told defendant before committing the robbery that they were going out to stick up a jewelry store. They divided the money received from him in four equal parts. They testified the defendant had knowledge of the robbery of the other places they testified to robbing, and promised them to buy, and did buy, the proceeds of the robbery. Guns were found in defendant's place when he was arrested, and the explanation he gave for their possession was that he wanted them for protection. The watch which had been taken to Alberti's jewelry store for repair was found on his person when he was arrested. He denied any knowledge of any of the robbers having taken it to the store or having taken it from his place. It had not been running before it was taken to the jewelry store for repair, but was running when taken from defendant's person. A card was found on defendant's person which was in the handwriting of Kosnick, and contained a notation of various amounts due from the four robbers to defendant. Defendant denied the card was found on his person, but the officers testified they took it from him, and Kosnick testified it was in his handwriting and was given defendant as a memorandum of the amount due from the robbers to Wagman.
We have not undertaken to set out the evidence of the four robbers further than that they testified defendant knew of the advised all the robberies and agreed to buy the proceeds of them, and that he did buy them for a fraction of their actual value. These four witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brinn
...is admissible to show guilty knowledge on the part of Clements. People v. Fiorito, 413 Ill. 123, 131, 161 N.E.2d 606; People v. Wagman, 311 Ill. 330, 336, 142 N.E.2d 743. Clements also claims he was denied due process of law in that he was not given time to prepared and argue post-trial mot......
-
People v. Flaherty
...that he expects leniency, (People v. Johnston, 382 Ill. 233, 46 N.E.2d 967), or has been actually promised leniency. People v. Wagman, 311 Ill. 330, 142 N.E. 743. It may be further observed, however, that the verdict in this case does not rest alone upon the uncorroborated testimony of acco......
-
People v. Nastasio
...reasonable doubt even though the witness admits that he expects leniency. People v. Johnston, 382 Ill. 233, 46 N.E.2d 967; People v. Wagman, 311 Ill. 330, 142 N.E. 743. We are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to justify the finding of the guilt of defendant beyond a reasonabl......
- Smith v. Bond (In re Cunningham's Estate)
-
The Use of Uncharged Misconduct Evidence to Prove Knowledge
...knowing that they were stolen, is relevant to show a scienter in respect to the property laid in the indictment."); People v. Wagman, 142 N.E. 743, 745-746 (Ill. 1924) (holding that, where the defendant charged with receiving stolen goods claimed lack of knowledge that the goods were stolen......