{ "id": 5279470, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Wilson, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Wilson", "decision_date": "1964-09-29", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 49,639", "first_page": "304", "last_page": "314", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "52 Ill. App. 2d 304" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "41 NE2d 502", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "379 Ill 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2551706 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/379/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 NE2d 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Ill2d 294", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5358622 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 NE 731", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 Ill 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3412818 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/243/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 NE2d 733", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "409 Ill 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5310693 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/409/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 NE2d 813", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Ill2d 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2701162 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/4/0296-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 786, "char_count": 17880, "ocr_confidence": 0.571, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.811183091813877e-08, "percentile": 0.3618367325662616 }, "sha256": "8ac91ed0937d2c65fabe8c09fdbdcf81f991c3ee481bda28db101b18f7ab3c1c", "simhash": "1:2648583e1820dc32", "word_count": 3135 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:06.292848+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "FRIEND and BRYANT, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Wilson, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BURKE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nMatthew Wilson appeals from a judgment on a verdict finding him guilty of obtaining $7,000 from Loney Neal in violation of the Confidence Game Statute (Ill Rev Stats 1961, c 38, \u00a7 256) and that he serve not less than seven nor more than ten years in the Illinois State Penitentiary.\nOn January 14,1960, Loney Neal was walking southward from Madison Street on State Street in Chicago upon leaving the First Federal Savings and Loan Association where he had just made a deposit to his account. He was confronted by a stranger, whose identity is unknown, hereinafter called the \u201cfirst man,\u201d who told Neal that he was an illiterate legatee from Arkansas and that he was carrying a great deal of money in a money belt around his waist. He asked Neal the location of a Reese Hotel and expressed a desire to see a girl before he returned to Arkansas. Neal replied that he did not know where the Hotel was located and suggested that \u201cfirst man\u201d consult the telephone directory. At this point, the defendant, Matthew Wilson, also a stranger to Neal, joined the pair. Wilson, a well-dressed, intelligent-looking man, answered that he knew the location of the Reese Hotel and offered to drive \u201cfirst man\u201d there in his automobile. Wilson asked Neal to escort \u201cfirst man\u201d to State and Adams Street while he acquired his automobile from a nearby parking lot. When Wilson arrived in the automobile, \u201cfirst man\u201d entered the rear seat. Neal said he was going home, accepted Wilson\u2019s offer to drive him to the south side of Chicago, and entered the front seat.\nAfter riding about fifteen minutes, during which time \u201cfirst man\u201d repeated his desire to see a girl and to go to the Eeese Hotel, Wilson drove into a parking lot near 26th and State Streets. Wilson exited, saying that he was going into the hotel to see if he could get a girl for \u201cfirst man.\u201d Upon his return some fifteen minutes later, Wilson stated that a girl would not be available for about fifteen minutes. Neal thereupon left the automobile, saying he was going home. Wilson offered to drive him to 47th Street; Neal again accepted, entered the automobile, exited at 47th Street, and entered the CTA elevated train station. Neal, a CTA employee, spoke to the collector in the station. Wilson, in the meantime, used the telephone and then told Neal that his boss gave him more time. He said he would drive \u201cfirst man\u201d back to the hotel and would then drive Neal home. Neal again accepted the offer.\nWhile riding in the automobile, Wilson remarked that \u201cfirst man\u201d had too much money to take into the hotel, to which Neal suggested that Wilson drive \u201cfirst man\u201d to a bank on 47th Street so that \u201cfirst man\u201d could deposit his money until he was ready to leave town. \u201cFirst man\u201d declined to do this, stating that if he deposited his money in a bank a white man\u2019s signature would be necessary as a voucher in order to withdraw the money, since this was the custom in Arkansas. Neal stated that \u201cfirst man\u201d was mistaken, that he, Neal, had just made a deposit at the First Federal, and produced his passbook. Wilson suggested that Neal withdraw his money from First Federal to prove to \u201cfirst man\u201d that a white man\u2019s signature is not a prerequisite to a withdrawal. Neal declined, stating that he did not want to lose the interest on his money, but Wilson assured him that a withdrawal of only a few hours would not result in a loss of interest. Neal decided to withdraw his funds from First Federal in order to protect \u201cfirst man.\u201d \u201cFirst man\u201d wagered that Neal could not withdraw the money without a white man\u2019s signature, and Neal accepted the wager.\nThe three men returned to the hotel to see if a girl was available, but were informed by a third stranger, whose identity is unknown and who shall be referred to as \u201cthird man,\u201d that there would be a long delay. Wilson then suggested that they proceed to the First Federal. \u201cThird man\u201d asked if he could accompany them and Wilson said \u201cyes.\u201d The four men proceeded to a parking lot hear Washington and Dearborn Streets, and Neal started to depart for the First Federal, located at Madison and Dearborn Streets a block away. \u201cFirst man\u201d said someone should go with Neal to insure that no white man signed for his withdrawal, so \u201cthird man\u201d offered to and did accompany Neal.\nWith \u201cthird man\u201d watching, Neal received $7,000 from the bank teller; the money was in $100 bills and bound with a rubber band. Neal placed the money into the pocket of his leather jacket and the two men returned to the automobile, where Wilson and \u201cfirst man\u201d were playing a game of cards. Wilson asked \u201cthird man\u201d if the withdrawal was accomplished and \u201cthird man\u201d replied in the affirmative. Wilson then asked Neal if he could see the money and Neal handed it to him. Wilson said, \u201cWe\u2019ll tie it up in this handkerchief.\u201d He proceeded to wrap the money in the handkerchief while the other three men bantered among themselves, and then gave Neal a stuffed handkerchief which Neal placed into the pocket of his jacket. Neal thought that the handkerchief contained both his and \u201cfirst man\u2019s\u201d money. \u201cFirst man\u201d stated that he did not want Neal carrying his, \u201cfirst man\u2019s,\u201d money around in the jacket pocket, removed the bundle from the pocket, unbuttoned Neal\u2019s shirt, and shoved the bundle under the shirt.\nWilson then said that he would drive \u201cfirst man\u201d over to the hotel and suggested that Neal remain in the loop and meet him at State and Adams Streets. Neal exited within five minutes after his return from the bank.\nWhile proceeding to State and Adams Streets, Neal decided to re-deposit his money at the First Federal since there was no longer any reason to carry it. He removed and opened the handkerchief, only to find strips of paper which fell out. Two plainclothes detectives, Harold Olson and Joseph Se\u00f1ase, observed Neal remove and open the handkerchief from about twenty-five feet away. They observed the paper strips fall out. The two officers conversed with Neal, who then led them to the parking lot at 122 North Dearborn Street which Wilson had just left, where they acquired the license plate number of Wilson\u2019s 1960 Cadillac sedan. Neal did not see Wilson again until four days later when he identified Wilson to \u00e1 policeman at the County Building in Chicago and again later that same day in a multiple lineup at police headquarters.\nDefendant Matthew Wilson testified in his own behalf. He stated that he met Neal and \u201cfirst man\u201d on State Street and agreed to drive them to a hotel to find a girl; \u201cfirst man\u201d offered to pay Neal and Wilson ten dollars apiece for their trouble. Wilson stated that he drove to 47th Street and South Park where Neal checked on his work schedule and that the three men then drove to 39th and Drexel where he contacted a man (\u201cthird man\u201d) about some girls. Upon his return to the automobile he found Neal and \u201cfirst man\u201d engaged in a game of cards. After about forty-five minutes of playing cards, Neal said that he had lost all of his money and then produced his passbook, but \u201cfirst man\u201d would play only for cash. Wilson stated that Neal asked him to drive him to the First Federal Savings and Loan Association so that he could make a withdrawal, that \u201cfirst man\u201d objected to his going alone, and that \u201cthird man\u201d accompanied Neal to make the withdrawal. Neal returned with a large amount of money and proceeded to gamble in the automobile in the parking lot at 122 North Dearborn Street. The gambling continued for about forty-five minutes when two policemen ordered the game to cease. After the policemen left, the game continued for another forty-five minutes when Neal and \u201cfirst man\u201d began to argue about bets. Neal jumped out of the automobile, saying that he wanted to get even. Wilson said that he drove off when Neal refused to reenter the automobile.\nDuring the course of this two and one-quarter-hour card game, Wilson stated that he had the motor of the automobile running for some time because it was cold that day. He also stated that he knew how to play various card games, but that he was not playing that day because he was short of money. He testified that he was employed as a bartender and made $65 per week.\nWilson denied that he ever received $7,000 from Loney Neal or that he tied $7,000 of Neal\u2019s money into a handkerchief; he also denied any conversation about a white man\u2019s signature being necessary to withdraw money from a bank.\nThe manager of the parking lot at 122 North Dear-born Street, Woodrow Waller, also testified for the defense. He stated that he observed the transfer of a white package from Wilson to Neal. Waller testified that he had seen Neal, Wilson, and two other men sitting in an automobile and observed a card game in progress on the day in question, which facts he failed to disclose until May 7, 1962, the opening day of the trial. He also stated that Wilson offered him $100 and, if he had paid, Waller would have told the police nothing.\nDefendant contends that the corpus delicti of the crime of obtaining money by use of the confidence game was not established in this case, for the reasons that Wilson was not shown to have obtained and retained possession of the $7,000 nor was he shown to have said or done anything by way of false representations in order to gain Neal\u2019s confidence. In the alternative defendant contends that, if the corpus delicti of the crime was established, the evidence fails to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that the evidence sufficiently establishes both a violation of the Confidence Game Statute and defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThe sequence and nature of the circumstances of this case warranted a jury to find that Wilson, \u201cfirst man,\u201d and \u201cthird man\u201d were engaged in a conspiracy to swindle Loney Neal out of his money. See People v. Jackson, 4 Ill2d 296, 122 NE2d 813. Defendant infers that because no conspiracy was charged in the one-count indictment the acts and statements of \u201cfirst man\u201d and \u201cthird man\u201d cannot be attributed to him. In People v. Niemoth, 409 Ill 111, 98 NE2d 733 the court said (118): \u201cEvidence is admissible to prove a conspiracy to commit the crime with which a defendant is charged although no conspiracy is laid in the indictment; and where a conspiracy is established, every act or declaration of any of the conspirators in furtherance of the common purpose is regarded as an act or declaration of each of them and may be proved against all.\u201d Accordingly, Matthew Wilson is chargeable with the acts and statements of \u201cfirst man\u201d and \u201cthird man\u201d as if they were his own.\nThe gist of the crime of obtaining money or property by use of the confidence game is a trust or confidence reposed in the swindler and betrayed by him as a means of obtaining the victim\u2019s money or property. People v. Jackson, 4 Ill2d 296, 122 NE2d 813. Wilson gained the confidence of Loney Neal by his own acts and statements and those of his confederate, \u201cfirst man.\u201d Neal was confronted on the public street by an allegedly illiterate southern man who was supposedly in need of help. Defendant Matthew Wilson then appeared on the scene, a well-dressed, intelligent-looking man. Playing the part of the \u201cgood Samaritan,\u201d Wilson offered to help \u201cfirst man\u201d and to drive Neal home in his new Cadillac automobile, all at no expense to either of them. After spending some time attempting to be of assistance to the two men, Wilson suggested that \u201cfirst man\u201d was carrying too much money to take into the hotel with himself, prompting Neal to suggest the solution of making a bank deposit. Neal then produced his First Federal passbook after \u201cfirst man\u201d declined to deposit his money due to an alleged Arkansas savings withdrawal custom. It was then conveniently suggested by Wilson that Neal withdraw his savings from the First Federal to show \u201cfirst man\u201d that he was mistaken. Neal expressed his reluctance to do so, for fear of losing interest on his money, but Wilson falsely assured him that a withdrawal for only a few hours would not result in a loss of interest. Neal then thought to himself, \u201cto keep this guy from losing his money, and everything like that, I believe I will do it for him.\u201d Neal withdrew the money, expressing by overt act his desire to help \u201cfirst man.\u201d This sympathy felt by Neal for \u201cfirst man\u201d is the same type of trust as was reposed by the victim in the defendant in the case of People v. Weil, 243 Ill 208, 90 NE 731, where the defendant borrowed money from the victim under the pretense of having lost his wallet and of being a friend of the victim\u2019s friend. Neal\u2019s trust in \u201cfirst man\u201d was again manifested by his allowing \u201cfirst man\u201d to remove the handkerchief which he thought contained his and \u201cfirst man\u2019s\u201d money, from his jacket pocket to the inside of his shirt. Any confidence or trust reposed in \u201cfirst man\u201d by Neal is imputed to Wilson by virtue of the conspiracy. Loney Neal\u2019s trust in Wilson is manifested by his allowing Wilson to handle the $7,000 and to wrap it up in the handkerchief; Neal testified that he thought the money would be returned to him. The final indication of Neal\u2019s trust in Wilson and \u201cfirst man\u201d was his willingness to leave the automobile and later meet Wilson at State and Adams Streets with \u201cfirst man\u2019s\u201d money.\nDefendant points out that Loney Neal stated on cross-examination that he did not have confidence in \u201cfirst man\u201d and was not interested in him. However, these statements must be considered in the manner and context in which the jury heard them:\n\u201cQ. Would it be fair to say you got in the car because of your sympathy for the man with the money belt on?\n\u201cA. Sympathy?\n\u201cQ. Yes. You were interested in that particular man, the man who had the money belt?\n\u201cA. I wasn\u2019t interested in no man, at all.\n\u201cQ. Didn\u2019t you say you felt sorry for him?\n\u201cA. I felt sorry for him, but that doesn\u2019t make me interested in him. I felt sorry for him because, as I said, he didn\u2019t have no education. He had this money in his belt and everything, and I didn\u2019t want him to get robbed.\n\u201cQ. You didn\u2019t have confidence in him, did you?\n\u201cA. I didn\u2019t know anything about it, no.\n\u201cQ. You didn\u2019t have trust in him?\n\u201cA. I didn\u2019t know whether he was telling the truth or not.\n\u201cQ. Will you answer my question?\n\u201cA. Oh, no, I didn\u2019t have no trust, if that\u2019s the way you want it.\n\u201cQ. You didn\u2019t have trust in this man, did you?\n\u201cA. No, I didn\u2019t know anything about either of them.\u201d\nWhat exactly Neal meant and how he meant it was a question for the jury, not for this court. Based on the evidence presented in this case, the jury could reasonably have found that Neal had reposed trust in \u201cfirst man,\u201d but that he was unable to comprehend the meaning of \u201cconfidence\u201d when the questions were presented to him on cross-examination.\nWhether the switch of handkerchiefs was made by Wilson or by \u201cfirst man\u201d is immaterial; as a conspirator Wilson is responsible for the acts of his confederates in carrying out the conspiracy.\nDefendant suggests that the loss of the money was the result of larceny on the part of \u201cfirst man,\u201d the person who last had possession of the handkerchief. Neal, however, voluntarily parted with possession of the handkerchief by permitting \u201cfirst man\u201d to remove the bundle from his pocket into his shirt. If this is when the switch occurred, it is nothing more than the final step in the swindle; the removal from the pocket resulted from misplaced confidence and voluntary parting of possession.\nDefendant\u2019s alternative contention, that the evidence is not of such clear and convincing nature as to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, ignores the fact that it is within the province of the jury, as the trier of fact, to believe certain witnesses and disbelieve others. People v. Arnold, 27 Ill2d 294, 189 NE2d 241. Viewing the evidence given by Loney Neal, and corroborated by Officer Olson as to the handkerchief full of paper strips and by defendant\u2019s witness, Woodrow Waller, as to the passage of a white package from Wilson to Neal, we cannot say that a reasonable doubt exists as to the guilt of Matthew Wilson. The case of People v. Gair, 379 Ill 458; 41 NE2d 502, cited by defendant in support of his request for reversal on this point, differs substantially from the case at bar. In the Gair case several glaring deficiencies in the People\u2019s evidence as to the fraudulent scheme, the obtaining and abusing the confidence of an allegedly mentally incompetent person, among other factors, prompted the court to reverse defendant\u2019s conviction because his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at bar, however, we are of the opinion that the evidence does establish defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson\u2019s convenient appearance on the scene, his zealous desire to be of assistance to two complete strangers, Neal and \u201cfirst man,\u201d at no expense to either, his convenient suggestion that Neal withdraw his funds and his false statement as to the interest loss, his subsequent wrapping of the money into a handkerchief creating a bundle of similar size and appearance to the one full of paper: in short, defendant\u2019s deep involvement in the entire situation eliminates any reasonable doubt upon which he may rely for reversal.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nFRIEND and BRYANT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BURKE" } ], "attorneys": [ "William C. Starke and Howard T. Savage, of Chi- \u25a0 cago (William C. Starke, of counsel), for appellant.", "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield (Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, Elmer C. Kissane and William J. Nellis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Wilson, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 49,639.\nFirst District, Second Division.\nSeptember 29, 1964.\nWilliam C. Starke and Howard T. Savage, of Chi- \u25a0 cago (William C. Starke, of counsel), for appellant.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield (Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, Elmer C. Kissane and William J. Nellis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0304-01", "first_page_order": 316, "last_page_order": 326 }