People v. Weaver

• Decision Date: 18 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. 35191,35191
• Citation: 18 Ill.2d 108,163 N.E.2d 483
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. John Alfred WEAVER et al., Plaintiffs in Error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 483

163 N.E.2d 483

18 Ill.2d 108

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. John Alfred WEAVER et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

No. 35191.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 18, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1960.

James M. Goff, and Adlai E. Stevenson, III, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Grenville Beardsley, Atty. Gen., and Eugene M. Pratt, State's Atty., Peoria (Fred G. Leach and William H. South, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Walter G. Hagemeyer, Asst. State's Atty., Peoria, of counsel), for the People.

HOUSE, Chief Justice.

A jury found the defendants, John Alfred Weaver and William Thomas Mitchell, guilty on counts of larceny and of forcible burglary and found that he had been previously convicted of larceny. The circuit court of Peoria County sentenced each of them to the penitentiary for concurrent terms of not less than one nor more than 10 years on the larceny count; not less than one year nor more than life imprisonment on the burglary count; and life imprisonment on the count alleging the prior conviction. In People v. Weaver, 10 Ill.2d 218, 139 N.E.2d 749, with only the common-law record before us, we held that the indictment and verdicts were each sufficient to support a judgment of conviction under the Habitual Criminal Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 38, par. 602. Defendants now maintain that their conviction should be reversed because the evidence did not support the verdicts, various improper remarks of the State's Attorney deprived them of a fair trial; and, the jury was improperly instructed.

On August 15, 1953, the White Rock Tavern in Peoria was burglarized and a number of items stolen therefrom. These items included coins from the juke box and cigarette machine, 22 or 23 half-pints of Seagram's Seven Crown and Corby's whiskeys, 2 quarts of Seagram's Seven Crown whiskey, three boxes of cigars and an unknown quantity of assorted brands of cigarettes. Two men were seen coming out of the tavern about 4 a. m. They were carrying something and went into the weeds on the north side of the tavern. The police were called and a squad car arrived within a few minutes. Defendant Weaver was apprehended in the weeds by the police officers. He was searched and found to have in his possession two screw drivers, two half-pints of Seagram's Seven Crown whiskey and $49.52 in coins of small denominations. The officers then checked the weeded lot and found a carton containing 73 packages of cigarettes, 20 half-pints of whiskey, 2 quarts of Seagram's whiskey, and 3 boxes of cigars. Weaver was tkane to the police station where he revealed that he owned a 1936 Chevrolet and its location. The police then went to Weaver's car where they found the defendant Mitchell lying on the back seat. They searched the car and found a half-pint of Seagram's Seven Crown whiskey.

Weaver testified that he and his wife went to Dick and Mary's Tavern in the afternoon of August 14 and were drinking there when they met Mitchell. All three left for Weaver's home about 5 p. m. When they arrived at Weaver's home, Weaver emptied a quart fruit jar of coins into his pockets and then he and Mitchell returned to Dick and Mary's Tavern. They drank beer there until about 7:30 and then went to the Illinois Tavern. There they did more drinking and Mitchell bought a half-pint of Seagram's Seven Crown whiskey. They then went to Yakoff's Tavern, drank two glasses of beer, bought two half-pints of Seagram's Seven Crown whiskey and returned to Dick and Mary's Tavern. Between 10:00 and 10:30 they started home but the Chevrolet would not start. Weaver tried to repair it, using two screw drivers, but he was unsuccessful. They started to walk home, but seeing a light in the White Rock Tavern they went there and drank more beer. Again they returned to Dick and Mary's where they drank beer until closing time. They then drank more beer in the car. Weaver became ill, left the car, sat on the curb and does not remember anything from then until the police awakened him in the weed patch near the White Rock Tavern. He denied entering the White Rock, Tavern after it was closed and denied taking anything from there.

Mitchell corroborated the testimony of Weaver. He stated that after Weaver left the car, he crawled into the back seat, opened the half-pint of whiskey he had bought, took two large drinks and went to sleep. He also denied breaking into the White Rock Tavern.

Richard Karkhove, the operator of Dick and Mary's tavern, testified that Mitchell and Weaver were drinking beer in his tavern from time to time during the afternoon and evening of August 14 and that they left when the tavern closed at 1:00 a. m. on August 15. He stated that he noticed a man sitting on the curb near Weaver's car between 2:00 and 2:30 a. m.

Mrs. Weaver testified that she and her husband kept coins, consisting of nickels, dimes and quarters in a fruit jar which was about three-fourths full on August 14.

Mrs. Weaver's son by a former marriage testified that Weaver emptied the jar on the evening of August 14.

Charles Siens testified that he saw Weaver and Mitchell at Dick and Mary's Tavern shortly after midnight, and that he borrowed three dollars in change from Weaver whose pocket was bulging with nickels, dimes and quarters. He also stated that Weaver had two-pints of whiskey in his back pockets and that Mitchell had a half-pint of whiskey in his back pocket.

The principal question presented by this writ of error is whether the defendants' guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a well-established rule that the recent, exclusive and unexplained possession of stolen property by an accused person in and of itself gives rise to an inference of guilt which may be sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other facts and circumstances which leave in the mind of the jury a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. People v. Pride, 16 Ill.2d 82, 156 N.E.2d 551; People v. Bennett, 3 Ill.2d 357, 121 N.E.2d 595; People v. Nixon, 414 Ill. 125, 111 N.E.2d 116. Defendants contend, however, that the People produced no evidence beyond the circumstances to show that they were in possession of stolen property and that their evidence clearly established that the coins and whiskey in their possession were not stolen property.

The proceeds of the larceny in this case-namely, coins, cigarettes, cigars and bottles of whiskey, unlike the engineer's transit in People v. Pride, 16 Ill.2d 82, 156 N.E.2d 551, the meat grinder in People v. Bennett, 3 Ill.2d 357, 121 N.E.2d 595, and the chain saw in People v. Nixon, 414 Ill. 125, 111 N.E.2d 116,-are almost devoid of features which enable them to be positively identified. When items such as these are the proceeds of a larceny or robbery, their identify as being those in the...