People v. Yarbrough

• Decision Date: 20 May 1977
• Docket Number: No. 48631,48631
• Parties: , 10 Ill.Dec. 213 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Richard YARBROUGH, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 666

367 N.E.2d 666

67 Ill.2d 222, 10 Ill.Dec. 213

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Richard YARBROUGH, Appellee.

No. 48631.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 20, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1977.

Robert H. Rice, State's Atty., St. Clair County (Robert L. Craig, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for the People.

Michael J. Rosborough, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Mt. Vernon, for appellee.

WARD, Chief Justice.

A jury in the circuit court of St. Clair County found the defendant, Richard Yarbrough, guilty of armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 18-2), and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 4 nor more than 12 years. The appellate court reversed (38 Ill.App.3d 396, 347 N.E.2d 776), and we granted the People's petition for leave to appeal (58 Ill.2d R. 315).

Eugene Compton testified at trial that he operates the Metro Barber College in East St. Louis. The first floor of the building housing the school serves as a barber shop, and the second floor as a classroom. The second floor is connected to the first floor by stairs located in the front of the building. The witness stated that on the afternoon of February 5, 1972, between 4:30 and 5 p. m., he and his students were in the classroom. Compton said that a man who was not one of his students appeared at the top of the stairs and that when he first saw him he was approximately 8 to 10 feet from the man. Compton testified that he walked toward the man to ask him why he was in the building and that when he was within 3 to 4 feet of him, the man drew a revolver from under his coat. The man ordered Compton and his students to lie on the floor. The witness said that the intruder and a companion, whom Compton was not in a position to see, then took his wallet containing $80, his keys, a briefcase which contained checks, a revolver and records. He described the robber as being a black man, 5 feet 10 inches in height, thin-faced and of normal build. The man wore a car coat, a red wide-brimmed hat and sunglasses. He testified that the lighting in the classroom was similar to that in the courtroom, that he viewed the robber for about 30 seconds, and that his view was not impaired by the robber's hat. He positively identified the defendant as the robber and said that he had identified the defendant at a preliminary hearing held in March of 1972.

Compton, on cross-examination, said that he might have viewed the defendant for only 25 seconds, rather than 30. He stated that the intruder's glasses were tinted and that one could see the wearer's eyes through them. He said that the intruder had sideburns and that he did not notice anything unusual about his nose. He testified that the part of the police report setting out the description given of the robbers (which differed from his description) was inaccurate. He said that subsequent to the robbery a "confidential" source had told him that "a Richard Yarbrough" was involved in the robbery and he had passed on to the police this name and the names of three other men the source had named. He was asked the name of this "source" and he said that was confidential information. An off-the-record colloquy at the bench then took place. The questioning resumed and Compton said the "source" didn't want his name disclosed. The cross-examiner asked whether it wasn't true that the witness had no way of knowing if the "source" had told the truth and Compton said he knew he had told the truth. When asked why, Compton said he knew it because he had identified the defendant as the robber.

Compton had also identified the defendant as the robber at a lineup held shortly after the robbery. This testimony was suppressed, however, prior to trial on the ground that the defendant had been illegally detained on an unrelated misdemeanor charge at the time the lineup was conducted.

Another witness for the prosecution, Robert Yates, testified that he was a student at Metro Barber College in February of 1972, and that he was in the classroom at the time of the robbery. He stated that Compton had been sitting with his back to the door when the robber appeared at the top of the stairs and that he, the witness, had been standing in front of the steps. He testified that the robber drew a gun from under his coat or sweater and ordered everyone to lie on the floor. Yates stated that he viewed the intruder for only 4 or 5 seconds and that Compton never had an opportunity to stand up, because the other robber shoved Compton to the floor. The witness described the robber as 5 feet 81/2 to 9 inches tall, thinly built with a flat nose and with a small goatee. He wore dark glasses and a red or maroon hat.

The appellate court, with one judge disagreeing, noted the variance between the testimony of Compton and Yates and reversed the conviction, saying the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction.

We agree with the dissenting judge that the question involved was one of credibility and was for the jury to decide. In People v. Stringer (1972), 52 Ill.2d 564, 569, 289 N.E.2d 631, 634, this court said that " 'where the identification of the accused is at issue, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to convict, even though such testimony is contradicted by the accused, provided the witness is credible and he viewed the accused under such circumstances as would permit a positive identification to be made. (Citations.) ' " (See also People v. Guyton (1972), 53 Ill.2d 114, 290 N.E.2d 209; People v. Ikerd (1963), 26 Ill.2d 573, 188 N.E.2d 12; People v. Capon (1961), 23 Ill.2d 254, 178 N.E.2d 296.) Here Compton testified that he observed the robber for at least 25 to 30 seconds and that he stood no farther than 3 to 4 feet from him. He had also identified the defendant as the robber at the preliminary hearing held 8 weeks after the robbery. The trial court denied a pretrial motion made by the defendant to suppress any in-court identification Compton might make, holding that Compton had had an adequate opportunity to...