{
  "id": 5204074,
  "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Defendants in Error, v. Nathaniel Russell, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Russell",
  "decision_date": "1959-09-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 47,723",
  "first_page": "13",
  "last_page": "16",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 Ill. App. 2d 13"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "371 Ill. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2522741
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/371/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 Ill. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5174448
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/322/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 Ill. 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5804200
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/356/0415-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 323,
    "char_count": 4539,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.762466957257206e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8957390952136591
    },
    "sha256": "30882f4af22d525c595b24f2913f58c14b73897780cf85635653695a84a422c1",
    "simhash": "1:0b3bdcb5e7ac10e5",
    "word_count": 775
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:13.254639+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "MURPHY, P. J. and KILEY, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "People of the State of Illinois, Defendants in Error, v. Nathaniel Russell, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE LEWE\ndelivered the opinion of tbe court.\nDefendant was charged with carrying a concealed revolver in violation of our criminal code, Ill. Rev. Stats. 1957, Ch. 38, Par. 155. He was tried by a court without a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to the House of Correction for sixty days. He now prosecutes this writ of error to reverse the judgment of the trial court.\nDefendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In particular, he claims that the People did not prove that the pistol he had was concealed.\nThe only testimony was that of the arresting officer and the defendant. The officer came upon defendant pointing a pistol at three men who were scuffling about five or six feet away. He ordered defendant to drop the gun. According to the officer, defendant instead put the barrel of the gun into his pocket with his hand covering the handle, and he then quickly disarmed defendant, tearing the latter\u2019s pocket in the process. Defendant testified that he had put part of the barrel into his pocket, that the handle was always out, and that his pocket was not torn when the officer tools; the gun away from him. In our view, this attempt to pocket the gun constitutes the concealment with which defendant is charged.\nDefendant, both here and in the trial court, questions whether the revolver was ever completely out of the arresting officer\u2019s sight. The officer\u2019s testimony indicates that he could not see any part of the revolver when defendant tried to pocket it, while defendant implies that the revolver remained partly in view. Assuming that this point is determinative, it is one to be decided by the trial court who saw and heard the witnesses testify. Our Supreme Court \u201chas frequently held that the testimony of one witness, even though denied by the accused, may be sufficient to sustain a conviction.\u201d People v. Fortino, 356 Ill. 415.\nUnder either version of the testimony, we think that the trial court\u2019s verdict should be upheld. Defendant relies on People v. Niemoth, 322 Ill. 51, as requiring that a revolver be carried in such a manner as to give no notice of its presence to support a conviction under our statute. The Niemoth case involves a quite different question, however; there, the court was concerned with whether a gun was so accessible as to allow its immediate use, and therefore carried \u201con or about\u201d the person. The court\u2019s language regarding concealment was greatly qualified in the subsequent case of People v. Eustice, 371 Ill. 159, which we believe is controlling here.\nIn the Eustice case, police officers had stopped a car in which four men were riding. One of the officers looked into the car and saw one of the defendants drop a pistol, which was held between his legs, to the floor of the car. The officer saw the other defendant try to kick another pistol, which was lying on the floor of the car, under the rear seat. The argument was raised there, as it is here, that the weapons were in full view of the officers and therefore not concealed. Upholding a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, the court said that the statute did not require that the weapon be carried so \u201cas to give absolutely no notice of its presence,\u201d but merely that it \u201cbe concealed from ordinary observation.\u201d\nThe arresting officer in the present case saw defendant with his revolver drawn, and for obvious reasons had a very active interest in what next happened to it. We think that whether the arresting officer ever lost sight of the gun is of minor importance. Defendant had the barrel of the gun in his pocket and his hand on the handle. This is not the sort of open, conspicuous arming of the person that would be readily noticed by the casual observer. We therefore think that the evidence supports the trial court\u2019s judgment finding defendant guilty of carrying a concealed weapon as charged.\nFor the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMURPHY, P. J. and KILEY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE LEWE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown, Brown, Cyrus and Greene, of Cbicago (Ernest A. Greene, of counsel) for plaintiff in error.",
      "Benjamin S. Adamowski, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook county (Francis X. Riley and William L. Carlin, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, \u00f3f counsel) for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Defendants in Error, v. Nathaniel Russell, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 47,723.\nFirst District, Second Division.\nSeptember 29, 1959.\nRehearing denied November 6, 1959.\nReleased for publication November 6, 1959.\nBrown, Brown, Cyrus and Greene, of Cbicago (Ernest A. Greene, of counsel) for plaintiff in error.\nBenjamin S. Adamowski, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook county (Francis X. Riley and William L. Carlin, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, \u00f3f counsel) for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0013-01",
  "first_page_order": 23,
  "last_page_order": 26
}