People v. Yates
| Decision Date | 06 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 19937.,19937. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. YATES. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; George F. Rush, Judge.
Howard J. Yates was convicted of robbery while armed with a revolver, and, to review the judgment, he brings error.
Affirmed.
Johan Waage, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., and John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago (Henry T. Chace, Jr., and Edward E. Wilson, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Howard J. Yates, was indicted by the grand jury of Cook county for robbery while armed with a revolver and was tried before a jury in the criminal court of that county, the trial resulting in a verdict of guilty. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, and judgment was entered sentencing plaintiff in error to the state reformatory. He has sued out this writ of error to review that judgment.
The facts disclosed by the evidence are as follows: On December 20, 1928, at about 10:15 o'clock p. m., the prosecuting witness, Earl Hostetter, the owner of a drug store at 4095 Belmont avenue, Chicago, was working at the soda fountain in the store. His wife was on her knees behind one of the showcases sorting and arranging toilet articles. A young man entered the store, ordered a drink, and gave Hostetter a coin. While Hostetter was making change the customer drew an automatic pistol from his pocket and commanded Hostetter to ‘get over.’ After emptying the cash register the robber demanded to know where the rest of the money was, and, when informed by Hostetter that it was in the other cash register, the robber compelled Hostetter, at the point of a pistol, to open the cash register, which was likewise emptied by the robber. Hostetter watched the robber's face throughout the holdup and as he backed through the door of the store. The witness next saw the robber at the Albany Park police station about a month later, where he identified plaintiff in error from among three suspects as being the man who robbed him. At the trial the witness also positively identified plaintiff in error as being the robber. The only other witness for the people was John O'Malley, the officer who made the arrest.
Plaintiff in error rested his defense upon an alibi, three witnesses testifying that he was at the home of a Mrs. Bansfield from 8:00 until 11:00 o'clock on the night of the robbery, but he did not himself take the stand. The three witnesses, Mrs. Bansfield, her daughter Eloise, and a Mrs. James, testified that plaintiff in error arrived at the Bansfield house about 8:00 o'clock in the evening and remained there continuously until 11:00 o'clock. Five witnesses testified as to the previous good character and reputation of plaintiff in error.
In the cross-examination of people's witness O'Malley, he was asked if there was any police record against plaintiff in error. An objection was sustained to the question. Plaintiff in error thereupon made O'Malley his witness and repeated the question. The witness answered that there was no record against plaintiff in error in the bureau of identification. On cross-examination by the assistant state's attorney the witness was asked if the arrest for the Hostetter robbery was the only arrest against the defendant. Over objection of plaintiff in error, the witness was permitted to state that he had arrested plaintiff in error for seven other robberies, and it is earnestly urged that this ruling of the court was error which should cause the reversal of the judgment. As a general rule, evidence of separate and distinct offenses having no connection with the issues being tried is inadmissible, and, where the facts are close, it is considered reversible error. In this case, however, counsel for plaintiff in error called O'Malley as his own witness and interrogated him regarding the police record of the defendant. A police record does not necessarily mean a record of convictions, but means any record kept by the police as to the persons apprehended by them and the charges against such persons. Since counsel for plaintiff in error had gone into the question of the police record, it was the right of the people to go into the subject upon cross-examination, and it was not error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...the trial judge has wide discretion in dealing with such matters and determining whether a mistrial is justified. In People v. Yates (1930), 339 Ill. 421, 171 N.E. 557, a juror reported to the trial judge that he had noticed a spectator waving her hands and nodding to a witness. The judge w......
-
People v. Snell, Gen. No. 50602
...may not claim prejudice. People v. Nastasio, 30 Ill.2d 51, 195 N.E.2d 144; People v. Ficke, 343 Ill. 367; People v. Yates, 339 Ill.2d 421, 171 N.E. 557. We find the latter principle applicable in this On direct examination (apparently for the purpose of emphasizing his claim that he had bee......
- People v. Miller
- People v. Smith