{ "id": 1590881, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Chambers, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Chambers", "decision_date": "1969-06-23", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 52,102", "first_page": "347", "last_page": "356", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "112 Ill. App. 2d 347" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "205 NE2d 503", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill App2d 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5285692 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/56/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 NE2d 694", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill2d 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2826279 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "113" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/30/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 NE2d 662", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ill App2d 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2585546, 2586122 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/72/0419-02", "/ill-app-2d/72/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 NE2d 133", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 Ill App2d 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2580852 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/74/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 US 293", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168284 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/388/0293-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 733, "char_count": 15290, "ocr_confidence": 0.591, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.488204342118743e-08, "percentile": 0.4859018807660215 }, "sha256": "780a68d0795be9a6513771d54012d4c8de5a13dbeb23388c0e8c1e2755af44c6", "simhash": "1:8372bcef3c20892a", "word_count": 2618 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:44.479060+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Chambers, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE MURPHY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn a bench trial and under consolidated indictments defendant was found guilty of murder and of robbery. He received two concurrent sentences to the penitentiary of 50 to 75 years. On appeal he contends (1) that his in-court identification \u201cwas tainted by a prior suggestive police lineup\u201d; (2) that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) that the sentences imposed were excessive.\nOn January 24, 1966, at about 2:00 p. m., a man with a knife entered the store of the Auburn Park Cleaners at 75 East 79th Street, where Mrs. Della Fields was alone on duty as a clerk. On his demand, Mrs. Fields gave him $20 from the cash register, and then they both went to the rear of the premises looking for a \u201csecond bank\u201d kept in a small pasteboard pin box. While they were in the rear, Henry Cullors, a 74-year-old customer, came into the store for his shirts, which defendant directed Mrs. Fields to give to him. After some colloquy, defendant stabbed Cullors twice on the face, and Cullors died while still in the store.\nThe testimony of Mrs. Fields as to the robbery included: The man was \u201ctrying to get Mr. Cullors behind the counter and Mr. Cullors wouldn\u2019t come behind the counter so the man just swung and hit him with the knife, cut him with the knife. I saw the knife in the hand of this man. Mr. Cullors was cut on the left side of his face or head. After this Mr. Cullors told him, \u2018Look how I am bleeding. Let her call a doctor.\u2019 And he told him, he said, \u2018If you don\u2019t get behind the counter and lie down I will stand up here and let you bleed to death.\u2019 Mr. Cul-lors still wouldn\u2019t lie down and I told Mr. Cullors, \u2018Lie down and I will get a doctor for you.\u2019 He then laid down. The man went to the door and came back. He had placed the money box I had given him on the counter while he was hitting Mr. Cullors. He then started toward the door and came back and took his money. He took the money out of the box and threw the box on the counter. Mr. Cullors was still lying there at this time.\u201d\nAfter defendant left, Mrs. Fields called the police, who arrived in about five minutes. Mrs. Fields described the robber to the police as a male Negro, weighing about 160 pounds, and about 25 to 30 years old; he had a pockmarked face, and he was wearing a three-quarter length black leather coat and a black hat. Later that day she modified her description of the assailant by stating that he had a large bump on his cheek and was wearing a black jersey knit shirt under the coat.\nOn February 1, 1966, Mrs. Fields received a telephone call from the police that they had \u201ccaught a man that might be the man.\u201d Later she was taken to the 21st District Station for a showup, where she identified defendant as the assailant.\nPolice Officer James Lewis, a laboratory technician for the Chicago Police, went to the cleaning store on the day of the robbery and took pictures of fingerprints found on the pin box and transported the evidence to the Police Bureau of Identification.\nOfficer Joseph Mortimer, a fingerprint expert with the Chicago Police for over 20 years, testified he examined the fingerprint card of the defendant made at the time of his arrest and the photographs of the fingerprints on the pin box. A comparison revealed that the prints off the box matched the right thumb and left index finger of the defendant. The officer further stated that it was normal identification procedure to make seven to twelve points of comparison for positive identification, and in the instant case there were nineteen points of comparison between the defendant\u2019s left index finger and one of the prints lifted from the pin box. In the officer\u2019s expert opinion the prints \u201cwere made by one and the same person.\u201d\nThe defendant took the stand in his own defense. He had no recollection of the day in question and denied the robbery and the killing of Mr. Cullors.\nDefendant\u2019s witness, Mrs. Delores White, testified that she was the office manager of the Gluckman Clinic at 2407 West Warren Avenue in Chicago, and that defendant was in the waiting room of the clinic at the time the cleaning shop was robbed. A \u201cmedical history\u201d card was presented, which showed the dates 1-24-66 and 1-26-66 as dates on which the defendant was in the clinic. The witness said she personally made the entry on the respective dates.\nOfficer Alford testified on rebuttal that he had seen the card on February 1, 1966, at the Gluckman Clinic, and the date 1-24-66 did not appear on the card.\nInitially considered is defendant\u2019s contention that the lineup was grossly unfair and substantially tainted the subsequent in-court identification by Mrs. Fields.\nMrs. Fields testified that the lineup of February 1, 1966, consisted of five Negro men with hats on and of different heights. She was asked if she noticed whether the person who committed this offense had a goatee, beard, mustache or was clean-shaven. Her answer was that she did not know. She further testified that at the lineup she did not notice whether the defendant had a goatee or a mustache; also, she did not observe whether any of the other men in the lineup had a pockmarked face or bumps on their face. Mrs. Fields said the robber was of dark complexion and in the lineup some of the men were darker than others. She stated that in the lineup she recognized the defendant by the green jacket he was wearing.\nPolice Officer O\u2019Connell testified that at the time of the lineup defendant was a \u201cMale Negro, six feet tall, 185 pounds, dark complexion, pockmarked face, with a prominent festered pimple on his left cheek, mustache, he had badly decayed or broken teeth in the front, he was wearing a green hat, a light green jacket, a green pullover sport shirt, dark gray trousers and black ankle-type boots.\u201d\nDefendant notes \u201cthat at the time of the robbery and at the time Mrs. Fields identified the defendant in the lineup she was unable to state whether the defendant or the robber had on a beard, mustache or goatee or was clean-shaven. She was, however, able to pick out the defendant who was wearing a mustache at the time. She was unable to describe the defendant\u2019s nose nor the presence of his decayed teeth. If it was indeed the defendant she would have no difficulty in describing to the police the presence of a mustache or beard or goatee.\u201d Also, defendant contends that a fair lineup would have included another prisoner in the lockup, \u201cThomas Cotton, whose physical characteristics (the pockmarked face), resembled that of the actual perpetrator of the crime.\u201d\nDefendant, to show that the lineup was highly suggestive and prejudicial to the defendant, enumerates the following points: (1) The defendant was the only man in the lineup with a mustache; (2) The defendant was the only man in the lineup with a pockmarked face, although the police had another suspect with a pockmarked face in custody; (3) The men in the lineup with the defendant were not all of the same height; (4) The men in the lineup were not of the same complexion; and (5) The police informed the complaining witness prior to the lineup that \u201cthey caught a man that might be the man.\u201d\nDefendant asserts that Stovall v. Denno, 388 US 293 (1967), stated that \u201cwhere the in-court identification of a defendant resulted from a line-up or show-up conducted in such a manner that it is so grossly unfair it is a denial of defendant\u2019s right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment and must be excluded.\u201d\nThe State asserts that the lineup was fundamentally fair and unprejudicial to defendant and states the evidence shows \u201cthe line-up was composed of five male Negroes of the same approximate age and physical description. Four of the five were approximately six feet tall and the fifth was approximately five foot eight inches tall. All were dressed similarly. They were all of approximately the same complexion. \u2018Some were darker than others. There weren\u2019t any real light ones.\u2019 \u201d Also, the State points out that the record shows one week after the robbery-murder Mrs. Fields immediately and without hesitation picked the defendant out of the lineup and later made a statement in his presence.\nIn considering defendant\u2019s contention that the lineup was unfair and prejudicial to defendant, we note that in Stovall v. Denno the court also stated (p 302):\n\u201cHowever, a claimed violation of due process of law in the conduct of a confrontation depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding it, and the record in the present case reveals that the showing of Stovall to Mrs. Behrendt in an immediate hospital confrontation was imperative.\u201d\nAfter an examination of the \u201ctotality of the circumstances surrounding\u201d the lineup identification of defendant by Mrs. Fields on February 1, 1966, we conclude that the composition of the lineup was not fundamentally unfair or prejudicial to the defendant, and defendant was not prejudiced by the manner in which the police notified the complaining witness to appear at the lineup.\nConsidered next is defendant\u2019s contention that the identification of the defendant \u201cwas vague, uncertain and cannot sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,\u201d primarily because the State\u2019s witness was uncertain as to whether the assailant at the time of the occurrence or at the lineup \u201chad a beard, mustache, goatee or was clean-shaven.\u201d Defendant\u2019s authorities on this point include People v. Marshall, 74 Ill App2d 483, 221 NE2d 133 (1966), in which defendant\u2019s conviction was reversed because the victim was not sure whether the robber had a mustache at the time of the robbery, and said (p 485):\n\u201cThe fact that the defendant did not have a mustache at the trial is not important; but the fact that the witness was not sure whether he had one at the time of the robbery is very important,\u201d and normally would not have been overlooked.\nDefendant also states that Mrs. Fields testified that she recognized the defendant in the lineup because a green jacket he was wearing was similar to the one worn by the robber. Defendant notes that \u201cMrs. Fields initially gave her description of the robber to the police and later when she amended her description to include among other things, a black jersey knit shirt, she failed to mention this now very prominent green jacket. She stated she recognized the defendant in the lineup from his green jacket.\u201d\nDefendant cites People v. Kincy, 72 Ill App2d 419, 219 NE2d 662 (1966), where, in reversing a robbery conviction because the plaintiff identified clothing and not facial characteristics, the court said (p 427):\n\u201cWhere the conviction of a defendant rests upon identification which is doubtful, vague and uncertain, and which does not produce an abiding conviction of guilt, it will be reversed.\u201d\nThe State maintains that the foregoing authorities are factually distinguishable from the instant case. The state asserts that the record contains nothing vague, doubtful or uncertain about the identification of defendant by Mrs. Fields. The State points out that the original observation was made under favorable conditions for identification \u2014 the lighting was excellent (2:00 p. m.), she saw him at close range at the store for about ten to fifteen minutes, and the description given by her to the police was very similar to the lineup description of defendant as given by Officer O\u2019Connell.\nWe agree that the failure to observe defendant\u2019s mustache and the failure to mention initially the green jacket are factors to be used in assessing the credibility of Mrs. Fields, but we do not agree that they are determinative here. The testimony of Mrs. Fields included, \u201cThe man that I am talking about I had an opportunity to look at him during this incident. I had a chance to look at him while I was waiting on Mr. Cullors and I saw him during the time when he was fighting with Mr. Cullors. I hardly taken my eyes off of him, maybe once or twice, but I saw him and I saw most of everything that went on. This man saw me face to face while we were in the store.\u201d\nIn sum, we find that the identification evidence was sufficient to support the defendant\u2019s conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The identification by Mrs. Fields of the defendant as the assailant on January 24, 1966, was clear and convincing and unshaken on cross-examination. Precise accuracy in describing facial characteristics is unnecessary where an identification is positive. The testimony of one witness alone, if positive and the witness credible, is sufficient to convict, even though the testimony is contradicted by the accused. People v. Miller, 30 Ill2d 110, 113, 195 NE2d 694 (1964).\nAlso, the identification testimony of Mrs. Fields was corroborated by the fingerprint testimony. Mrs. Fields testified she saw the defendant pick up the pasteboard pin box on two occasions while in the store. Officer Lewis found fingerprints on the box and preserved them for identification. It was the professional opinion of the fingerprint expert that the two prints taken from the pin box were identical to the right thumb and index finger of the defendant, and that both sets of prints were made by one and the same person.\nFinally, defendant contends that the sentence imposed upon defendant is excessive and should be reduced. Defendant states that the hearing in aggravation and mitigation showed that defendant had only one prior conviction, and that he was 26 years of age. Four psychiatrists, who examined the defendant prior to trial, found him to be mentally retarded. Defendant argues that the imposition of the sentence of 50 to 75 years shows that the trial judge in no way took into consideration the various psychiatric factors, and the minimum sentence \u201cdestroys all hope of rehabilitation and eventual release.\u201d\nThe State maintains that the defendant was proved guilty of \u201ca brutal and senseless taking of a human life while in the act of committing a felony,\u201d and that his sentence should not be reduced. The State notes that, although the four psychiatrists found him to be \u201cmentally retarded,\u201d \u201ca schizoid personality,\u201d \u201cslow and retarded,\u201d and \u201cgarbled and confused,\u201d nevertheless it was the opinion of the psychiatrists that the defendant \u201cknew the nature of the charges against him and was able to cooperate with counsel.\u201d\nAfter considering the nature of the crime and the attending circumstances, including the pretrial findings of the four psychiatrists, we find the sentence was within the statutory limits, and a reduction of the punishment imposed by the trial court is not justified by any reasonable view which might be taken of the instant case. See People v. Hobbs, 56 Ill App2d 93, 205 NE2d 503 (1965).\nFor the reasons given, the judgments of the Circuit Court of Cook County are affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nADESKO, P. J. and BURMAN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE MURPHY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Ronald P. Katz and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.", "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Gerald T. Rohrer, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for ap-pellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Chambers, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 52,102.\nFirst District, First Division.\nJune 23, 1969.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Ronald P. Katz and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Gerald T. Rohrer, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for ap-pellee." }, "file_name": "0347-01", "first_page_order": 353, "last_page_order": 362 }