TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The PEOPLE v. Reed

The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. George Reed, Plaintiff in Error

People v. Reed, 189 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. 1963)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 22, 1963
Docket
No. 37142
Judges
William G. Clark
Citations
189 N.E.2d 25327 Ill. 2d 3421963 Ill. LEXIS 640
Cited by 5

Opinion — Klingbiel

Mr. Justice Klingbiel delivered the opinion of the court :

The defendant was tried in the criminal court of Cook County by the court without a jury and found guilty of the crime of armed robbery. A writ of error has issued to review the judgment of conviction.

The sole contention advanced here is that the evidence was insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim of the robbery, Oscar Jepsen, a truck driver, testified that he parked in an alley, where he was preparing to make a delivery. He saw an old orange colored car several hundred feet down the alley and saw a man walking toward him. This man got into the truck, stood close to Jepsen, pointed a gun at him and took the money which Jepsen had in his possession, amounting to about $500 to $700 in cash plus a check made out to “Oriental Chop Suey”. Jepsen watched the man get into the orange car and drive away. At a subsequent police lineup and again at the trial, Jepsen identified the defendant as the robber. About half an hour later the defendant was arrested while he was illegally parked in a 1954, orange colored car. When he was arrested, he had in his possession about $500 in cash, a check made out to “Oriental Chop Suey” and a black revolver. The check was never introduced in evidence at the trial and a police officer testified that it had been lost.

The above evidence was uncontradicted by any testimony submitted by the defendant. It is obvious that this evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. The defendant argues that, for various reasons, this testimony is unworthy of belief. The trial judge heard the evidence and observed the witnesses and it was his function to determine the credibility of the witnesses. We shall not disturb his finding.

The judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1965: 11967: 11976: 21978: 119652026peak 1976 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Mendoza378 N.E.2d 1318 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)
  2. People v. Cook354 N.E.2d 122 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)
  3. People v. Dukes352 N.E.2d 255 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)
  4. People v. Ervine212 N.E.2d 346 (Ill. App. Ct. 1965)
  5. The PEOPLE v. Reed223 N.E.2d 103 (Ill. 1967)

Most recent

  1. People v. Mendoza378 N.E.2d 1318 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)
  2. People v. Cook354 N.E.2d 122 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)
  3. People v. Dukes352 N.E.2d 255 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)
  4. The PEOPLE v. Reed223 N.E.2d 103 (Ill. 1967)
  5. People v. Ervine212 N.E.2d 346 (Ill. App. Ct. 1965)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list