{ "id": 5276086, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. George T. Boulahanis, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Boulahanis", "decision_date": "1964-07-15", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 49,552", "first_page": "440", "last_page": "444", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 Ill. App. 2d 440" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "141 NE 196", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 Ill 292", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5104046 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "306" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/309/0292-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 NE2d 321", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "402 Ill 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2617944 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78, 80" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/402/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 NE2d 555", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 Ill2d 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2738810 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "500" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/20/0496-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 NE2d 72", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "373 Ill 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2529792 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "104" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/373/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 NE2d 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Ill2d 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5359658 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "341" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 NE 2d 99", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Ill2d 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2803753 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/24/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 NE2d 831", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 Ill App 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5099029, 5095837 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/348/0389-01", "/ill-app/348/0389-02" ] }, { "cite": "192 NE 777", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 Ill 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5279381 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/358/0052-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 423, "char_count": 6030, "ocr_confidence": 0.559, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.54146612518065e-07, "percentile": 0.8134717506696336 }, "sha256": "e708dce0e8280299409f69f785db6423cad936b79540f3993205adbe8b5c750e", "simhash": "1:87e95448e2a0634a", "word_count": 1057 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:26.409498+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "DRUCKER and McCORMICK, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. George T. Boulahanis, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAfter a jury trial defendant was sentenced to a term of three to six years in the penitentiary for theft of 26 television and hi-fi sets.\nOn this appeal defendant does not contend that the evidence failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the record discloses overwhelming proof of guilt. The sole point raised is that defendant\u2019s right to a fair trial was violated when on three occasions during the trial the State\u2019s Attorney was permitted to elicit testimony to the effect that defendant had refused to answer questions when interrogated by the police after his arrest. In each instance defendant\u2019s attorney interposed an objection which was overruled and made a motion for mistrial which was denied.\nIn People v. Rothe, 358 Ill 52, 192 NE 777; in People v. Hansen, 348 Ill App 389, 108 NE2d 831; and, more recently, in People v. Lewerenz, 24 Ill2d 295, 181 NE 2d 99, convictions were reversed because of the admission of evidence that the defendant had refused to make a statement to the police. In the latter case the refusal was on advice of counsel. The principle declared was that the defendant was within his rights in refusing to make such a statement, and that evidence of such a refusal was neither material nor relevant since it had no tendency to prove or disprove the issues being tried.\nWe find this line of cases inapplicable to the case before us, however, because this defendant\u2019s refusal to answer questions was relevant when considered in context, and did tend to establish the charge against him.\nIn the course of a prompt and continuing investigation of the theft of a truck containing a large number of television sets, detectives apprehended defendant and two other men in possession of a smaller truck loaded with a substantial part of the missing equipment. The proof of this circumstance brings the case within the rule that unexplained possession of recently stolen property gives rise to an inference of guilt which may be sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft. People v. Hawkins, 27 Ill2d 339, 341, 189 NE2d 252; People v. Kulig, 373 Ill 102, 104, 25 NE2d 72. Thus when defendant was caught with the goods his explanation or lack of it became of critical importance.\nAfter defendant\u2019s apprehension he was taken to the police station and there questioned by Officer Murphy. The latter\u2019s testimony in this regard follows:\nMr. Tuite: (Assistant State\u2019s Attorney) Q. To the best of your memory what were the words you said to Mr. Boulahanis, what were the words he said to you at that time and place ?\nThe Witness: A. I asked Mr. Boulahanis how he came in possession of the TV sets.\nQ. What did he say to you?\nA. He, to the best of my recollection, his words were \u201cYou know I can\u2019t tell you.\u201d\nQ. What if anything else was said to Mr. Boulahanis? What if anything else was said to you?\nA. At this time ?\nQ. Yes, at that time.\nA. I attempted to ask the same question\u2014\nMr. Echeles: (Defendant\u2019s attorney) Object, your Honor.\nMr. Tnite: Q. What were the words to the best of your recollection you used?\nThe Witness: A. To the best of my recollection I said, \u201cCome on Georgie, tell us how you got these sets.\u201d\nQ. What if anything did he say to you?\nA. He sort of smiled, shrugged his shoulders and wouldn\u2019t answer.\nQ. Did you ask him anything else at that time ?\nA. I asked him the same question several other times after that.\nQ. What did he answer ?\nA. He gave me no answer.\nA. (Later the same day) I again asked Mr. Boulahanis how he had come in possession of the TV sets.\nQ. What if anything did he say in return to that?\nA. He smiled, shook his head, and motioned with his finger for me to come closer, and I leaned forward a little bit. He said to me, he said, \u201cIt is worth five grand if you get me out of here.\u201d\nAside from the reason we have stated above, we believe that this testimony was admissible in the State\u2019s case in chief as an admission, and as evidence of an attempt to bribe. People v. Minor, 20 Ill2d 496, 500, 170 NE2d 555; People v. Gambony, 402 Ill 74, 78, 80, 83 NE2d 321; People v. Spaulding, 309 Ill 292, 306, 141 NE 196.\nDefendant testified in his own defense, and gave a long, detailed, exculpatory explanation for his presence in the truck at the time of his arrest. It was extremely farfetched and failed to explain all the circumstances. In the course of it he denied all of the testimony of witness Murphy and insisted that the only answer he had given to Murphy\u2019s questions was: \u201c \u2018I don\u2019t know nothing about it. I should have went with my brother.\u2019 Exact words.\u201d He also testified on cross-examination, without objection, that he had told the same story at the police station as he had in court; that he did not remember telling Officer Janda at the station that he would not answer any more questions after he had answered concerning his name, address and marital status.\nIn rebuttal Officer Janda testified relative to his participation with Murphy and a stenographer in the questioning of defendant at the police station. In the course of this testimony it was again brought out, and here \u2022 complained of, that defendant had declined to answer Janda\u2019s questions. We think Janda\u2019s testimony was proper rebuttal under the circumstances.\nAs mentioned, it is not argued that the State failed to prove defendant\u2019s guilt. We conclude that the errors complained of do not require reversal of his conviction. Defendant had a fair trial, and the judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDRUCKER and McCORMICK, JJ., concur.\nThere were other incriminating circumstances in the case which we have not described.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE ENGLISH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Julius Lucius Echeles, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Lester A. Bonaguro, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. George T. Boulahanis, Appellant.\nGen. No. 49,552.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nJuly 15, 1964.\nJulius Lucius Echeles, of Chicago, for appellant.\nDaniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Lester A. Bonaguro, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0440-01", "first_page_order": 450, "last_page_order": 454 }