{
  "id": 2822440,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Jessie Merrit, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Merrit",
  "decision_date": "1963-11-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 37706",
  "first_page": "423",
  "last_page": "426",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. 2d 423"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 4717,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.784,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.871964132982944e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45976657326353776
    },
    "sha256": "1ef3b393fab0019c88def9ff8f71310f28ad34b1e656e66938b8489b15e2fc38",
    "simhash": "1:b122b434137a8dfd",
    "word_count": 800
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:19.423812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Jessie Merrit, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Jessie Merritt, was convicted of the crime of burglary after a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 3 nor more than 15 years. On this writ or error, he contends' that his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\nOn the evening of February 20, 1962, Harry Kaplan and his wife were watching television in their home on Chicago\u2019s south side. About 11:5o P.M., they heard a noise in the kitchen and discovered that a kitchen window had been opened and that Mrs. Kaplan\u2019s purse had been taken. Only a few minutes before, the Kaplans had seen the purse on a table next to the opened window. The purse contained $26 in bills, about $4 in' change, glasses, identification papers, and a number of keys.\nAbout 12:10 A.M., police officer Robert Carbray saw the defendant several blocks from the Kaplan home \u201cwith something under his coat, a large object.\u201d In response to the officer\u2019s questioning, the defendant produced a woman\u2019s purse from under his coat. There was no money in the purse, but it contained identification papers belonging to Mrs. Kaplan. The defendant voluntarily accompanied the police to the Kaplan home where Mrs. Kaplan identified the purse as the one taken from her kitchen. The defendant was then searched and $26 in bills were found between the two pairs of socks that he was wearing. The police also found Mrs. Kaplan\u2019s keys in the defendant\u2019s pockets and an eight-inch butcher knife under his trousers. Officer Carbray further discovered that the heel of the defendant\u2019s shoe matched a damp heel mark left on the table top-adjacent to the opened window in the Kaplan kitchen.\nThe defendant testified that he lived about four or five blocks from the Kaplans, that he had left his home about x 1:3o P.M. to purchase cigarettes and had found the purse while returning to his home. He also testified that he had stopped the police to tell them about finding the purse. He denied removing any money from the purse and testified that the money found between his socks was the remainder of an $80 check which he had cashed that afternoon. He further testified that he had undergone an operation several weeks before the burglary and that he would have been unable to climb through the Kaplans\u2019 window. It was stipulated that if the defendant\u2019s girl friend was called as a witness, she would testify that she was with the defendant until 11 -.45 P.M. on February 20, and that she knew he had money of his own at that time. It was further stipulated that another witness would testify that the defendant had $80 with him on the afternoon of the burglary.\nThe defendant contends that his conviction was based upon circumstantial evidence that did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and that his alibi presented a reasonable doubt of guilt. Specific attention is directed to the defendant\u2019s physical incapacity at the time of the burglary and the police officer\u2019s failure to describe with particularity the heelprint found on the table top.\nThe evidence presented by the People tended strongly to negate the defendant\u2019s assertion that he had found the purse. The fact that the purse was carried under the defendant\u2019s coat and the fact that he had put the keys in his pocket were inconsistent with an innocent course of conduct. The exact amount of bills missing from the stolen purse was found concealed in the defendant\u2019s socks. The defendant\u2019s claim that he was physically unable to climb through the Kaplans\u2019 window was contradicted by Harry Kaplan\u2019s testimony that the window was \u201clow enough to almost step through. You wouldn\u2019t have to climb. You could just put your foot right through the window.\u201d No claim is made that officer Carbray\u2019s testimony regarding the identification of the heelprint on the table top was inadmissible. The weight to be given that testimony was for the trial court to determine.\nIn our opinion the trial court did not err in holding that the defendant\u2019s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John F. White, of Chicago, (Jacobs and McKenna, and Barry L. Kroll, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.",
      "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Elmer C. Kissane and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 37706.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Jessie Merrit, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed November 26, 1963.\nJohn F. White, of Chicago, (Jacobs and McKenna, and Barry L. Kroll, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Elmer C. Kissane and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0423-01",
  "first_page_order": 429,
  "last_page_order": 432
}