35 N.E.2d 76 | Ill. | 1941
Sam Canino, the defendant, Peter Seritella, Angelo Rodorigo and William Squiller were indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for the crime of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon. They were tried by a jury and found guilty as charged. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled. The defendant, Sam Canino, sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for an indeterminate term of one year to life, prosecutes this writ of error for a review of the record.
The robbery occurred about 12:45 in the morning of September 5, 1939, in a tavern operated at 4609 South Wentworth avenue, Chicago, by William Lileikis and Mary, his wife. The complaining witnesses, both of whom were born in Lithuania, experienced great difficulty with the English language. They testified that at the time mentioned three men, including defendant, entered the tavern and announced a "stick-up"; that the men were hatless, used handkerchiefs as masks, and two of them carried guns. They further testified that one of the three, wearing sun glasses in addition to a handkerchief, hit William Lileikis on the head with a gun. Mrs. Lileikis testified that the same person took money and then shot out the lights, whereupon the three men left the tavern. When the complaining witnesses reached the street, they found that two police officers in a squad car had apprehended the three men, together with a *642 fourth man who had remained outside the tavern. They accused the four men, who were the defendants in the trial court, of having held them up, and none denied the accusation. Upon investigation, William Lileikis discovered that ten dollars had been taken.
Michael F. Harris and John Nolan, the arresting officers, testified for the People that on the morning in question, while driving a squad car, they observed a large Buick automobile parked on the wrong side of the street, facing south, in front of the tavern, its rear license plate obscured by signs attached to the car. They further testified that the defendant, Canino, was looking in the tavern window; that he glanced up and down the street, then suddenly jumped into the car and that, simultaneously, Squiller, Rodorigo and Seritella ran out of the tavern, the last two carrying guns, and leaped into the car, which started south with defendant driving; and that Seritella wore sun glasses, while the other two had handkerchiefs over their faces. The two guns were thrown from the window of the car as the officers forced it to the curb. One of the guns contained seven cartridges, and the other three cartridges and two empty shells. The sun glasses were not found, but a search of the car revealed four handkerchiefs and a spectacle case. The officers also found approximately ten dollars on the four men. After the men were lined up in the street with their hands raised, the complaining witnesses identified them.
The defendants, testifying in their own behalf, denied all connection with the robbery. They asserted that they had been passing the tavern when arrested, had not been out of the car, did not possess guns, and had not worn handkerchiefs over their faces. Seritella admitted a previous imprisonment in the penitentiary. The only other witness was Lucille Squiller, a sister of William Squiller, who testified that William Lileikis had shown uncertainty at a preliminary hearing as to the identity of any of the defendants. *643
The defendant, Sam Canino, suggests no error of law in the trial court, but seeks a reversal solely upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. He attacks as doubtful and contradictory the testimony of the complaining witnesses with reference to his having been in the tavern. In particular, defendant points out that William Lileikis, on one occasion, mentioned the four defendants as having been present in the tavern, and stated, in one instance, that defendant did, and, in another, that he did not have a gun. He directs attention to testimony of the officers, to the effect that prior to the trial the complaining witnesses did not specifically designate defendant as one of the men in the tavern. Where no prejudicial error appears in the record, a judgment of conviction will not be disturbed unless the verdict is palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence, or the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. (People v. Diekelmann,
The conviction of the defendant is amply supported by the evidence, and the judgment of the criminal court of Cook county is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
