People v. Wallenberg
| Decision Date | 23 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 36846,36846 |
| Citation | 181 N.E.2d 143,24 Ill.2d 350 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Anthony WALLENBERG, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Julius Lucius Echeles and Thomas P. Cernek, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
The defendant Anthony Wallenberg was indicted together with one John Prochut in the criminal court of Cook County on a charge of robbery of one Walter P. Wojcik. They both pleaded not guilty and were tried by the court without a jury. Both defendants were found guilty and were sentenced to the penitentiary for terms of not less than 9 years nor more than 15 years.
The defendant Wallenberg alone brings this writ of error, contending that the court erred by considering matters not in the record in determining his guilt; in limiting the examination of a defense witness on a material issue; and in permitting inquiry of a witness for the defendant Willenberg whether he had been previously convicted of a crime.
The material facts as disclosed by the testimony show that Wojcik operated a tavern at 3415 West 51st Street in the city of Chicago. On July 8, 1960, at about 3:15 P.M. in the tavern, two men drew pistols and robbed him of $725. The same night at a police lineup Wojcik identified Prochut and Wallenberg as the men who had robbed him.
Wallenberg was a truck driver, and his principal defense is an alibi based on the testimony that at approximately 3:15 P.M. on July 8, 1960, he was at the corner of Western and Wabansia in the city of Chicago awaiting the arrival of a mechanic from his employer's company to fix a flat tire. It was established that Western and Wabansia is 79 blocks from the tavern on 51st Street. It is in connection with the alibi that defendant contends that he was limited in his examination of a defense witness on the issue of the length of time required to travel the distance between the tavern and the point at which Wallenberg contends he was at the time of the robbery. John Labuda, the defendant's employer, was asked to state the time it would take a person to drive the distance of approximately ten miles in the city of Chicago. An objection to the question was sustained and the answer stricken. We do not think the court erred in this ruling, since there was no foundation laid to show that he had driven the route that day, nor indeed on any other day, nor that the witness had any basis for an expert opinion on the question. Furthermore, the mechanic who had been dispatched to fix the flat tire on Wallenberg's truck was permitted to testify how long it had taken him to travel from the truck terminal to Western and Wabansia, which was approximately half the distance from the tavern to Western and Wabansia. In addition to the failure to lay a proper foundation for the employer's testimony, its rejection would not be prejudicial error since the same or substantially the same evidence was admitted when a competent witness testified. People v. Moretti, 6 Ill.2d 494, 129 N.E.2d 709.
Defendant also claims that he was prejudiced by improper conduct of the prosecution in asking the witness Labuda if he had been sentenced to the penitentiary for robbery on February 8, 1926. The witness denied the conviction, and the prosecution made no attempt to prove the conviction of an infamous crime. While it is proper to show a witness has been convicted of an infamous crime in order to impeach his credibility, we condemn such interrogations unless the prosecution is actually prepared to make such a showing. In the case at bar, however, the question was stricken upon motion of the defendant, and the trial judge stated that there was nothing therein of probative value with respect to defendant Wallenberg. Since it appears that the court, as the trier of facts, was not improperly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Phillips
...Ill.2d 376, 419, 102 Ill.Dec. 322, 499 N.E.2d 1335; People v. Harris (1974), 57 Ill.2d 228, 231, 314 N.E.2d 465; People v. Wallenberg (1962), 24 Ill.2d 350, 354, 181 N.E.2d 143.) There is nothing in the record to rebut the presumption that the court considered only competent evidence in sen......
-
People v. Dameron
... ... "A determination made by the trial judge based upon a private investigation by the court or based upon private knowledge of the court, untested by cross-examination, or any of the rules of evidence constitutes a denial of due process of law." People v. Wallenberg, 24; Ill.2d 350, 354, 181 N.E.2d 143 (1962) ; accord People v. Thunberg, 412 Ill. 565, 567, 107 N.E.2d 843 (1952) ; People v. McMiller, 410 Ill. 338, 342, 102 N.E.2d 128 (1951) ... We turn to the trial court's sentencing comments regarding the social science book: ... "As ... ...
-
People v. Holman
... ... For similar reasons we find no fault with the trial court's decision to permit Officer Brown to testify that the photograph depicted Holman. The cases cited by Holman (People v. Garrett (1975), 62 Ill.2d 151, 339 N.E.2d 753; People v. Wallenberg (1962), 24 Ill.2d 350, 181 N.E.2d 143) are inapposite, for they involved subjects which required scientific knowledge or knowledge of special facts. No special knowledge other than acquaintance with the person named in the identification is required to identify a person depicted in a photograph ... ...
-
People v. Olinger
... ... It is improper for the prosecutor to ask a witness questions for purposes of impeachment unless the prosecutor is prepared to offer proof of the impeaching information. (People v. Burbank (1972), 53 Ill.2d 261, 269-70, 291 N.E.2d 161; People v. Wallenberg (1962), 24 Ill.2d 350, 353, 181 N.E.2d 143.) In the instant case, however, the curative instruction to the jury served to completely remedy the improper impeachment. The trial court clearly explained the prosecutor's mistake, and in light of the court's admonition there is no way in which the ... ...