{
  "id": 2553426,
  "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Walter Bell, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bell",
  "decision_date": "1967-05-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 51,329",
  "first_page": "48",
  "last_page": "52",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 2d 48"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 362,
    "char_count": 6055,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.61,
    "sha256": "9a98bcd735b50701571bb81efa159bcf5e066684dce175ae638a44840c942cdd",
    "simhash": "1:6da910a24302e5a7",
    "word_count": 1053
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:35.235024+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Walter Bell, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE DEMPSEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nA jury found the defendant John Bell guilty of armed robbery and he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of ten to twenty years. He was tried with a codefendant, James Brinkley, who was also found guilty and similarly sentenced. Bell alone prosecutes this appeal. He contends that prejudicial error was committed during his trial.\nThe defendants were accused of robbing Benjamin Biegel, the owner of a tailoring and cleaning shop, on October 6, 1962. On October 4th Bell, 24 years of age, and Brinkley, 33 years old, brought three shirts to Biegel\u2019s basement shop to be cleaned. Biegel said they would be ready in two days and asked for the name of the owner. Bell gave his name; two of the shirts had his name on them. The men returned about 1:30 p. m. on the 6th. Bell asked for his shirts and Biegel replied that he expected them to be delivered to his store at any minute. Bell moved close to Biegel, pulled a gun, stuck Biegel in the side and ordered him to lock the door. Biegel complied. Brinkley told Bell to take Biegel to the back, to put him on the floor and to cover him with a coat taken from a rack. Bell did so and said: \u2018\u2018Don\u2019t you dare look or I\u2019ll kill you.\u201d While Bell guarded Biegel, Brinkley went through his pockets, emptied the cash register and searched the shop. They tied him up with neckties and belts and left the shop with $62.20 of his money and clothing belonging to his customers. He released himself and called the police.\nAt 8:00 in the morning on October 22, 1962, Bell and Brinkley came to his shop a third time. The front door and the screen door were locked. Brinkley demanded that the door be opened so that he could pick up some clothing he had at the shop. Without unlocking the screen door Biegel asked: \u201cAre you sure?\u201d Brinkley said he was; Biegel told him the clothing was not ready but would be in the afternoon. Biegel closed the door and called the police. Minutes later the police arrested the men as they emerged from an alley. They brought the men back to the shop and Biegel identified them as the men who had robbed him on October 6th.\nWhen first questioned at the police station Bell and Brinkley denied being in Biegel\u2019s shop on the 4th, 6th or 22nd. Later Bell said he had brought three shirts there on the 4th and had returned for them on the 22nd; he again denied being there on the 6th. The defendants were also questioned by a detective of the robbery detail of the Chicago Police Department. Brinkley repeated his denial. Bell, however, admitted going to the shop on October 6th to see if his shirts were ready but he denied the robbery. He said he took his shirts to Biegel\u2019s shop, which was a mile and a half from where he lived, because he had heard that Biegel did good laundering.\nBell testified at the trial; Brinkley did not. Bell said that Brinkley was with him when he went to the shop on October 4th and October 22nd but that he was alone when he went there on October 6th to inquire about his shirts.\nThe first error asserted by the defendant is that the trial court improperly overruled objections made by his attorney during his cross-examination. On cross-examination the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, over objection, asked the defendant if there were other cleaning shops between his house and Biegel\u2019s. The defendant answered affirmatively and the prosecutor asked, \u201cHow many are there ?\u201d When the defendant said he could not recall the prosecutor inquired: \u201cThere are at least fifteen of them, are there not?\u201d The defendant answered, \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d It is argued that permitting the prosecutor to ask these questions was prejudicial because there was no evidence that there were fifteen shops between the defendant\u2019s home and Biegel\u2019s store, and that the State never attempted to show that there were after asking the questions. The form of the question did connote that the prosecutor knew there were at least fifteen such stores, and to this extent the question was a mistake unless the prosecutor was prepared to support it with proof. No proof was forthcoming and thus asking the question was error; the error, however, was relatively harmless.'\nThe final errors asserted are the following statements made by the Assistant State\u2019s Attorney in his final argument: (1) \u201cHe came a mile and a half from his home through neighborhoods where there were a lot of cleaning establishments to come to this cleaning establishment\u201d; and (2) . I can see no reasonable doubt created in anybody\u2019s mind as to the guilt of the two defendants.\u201d It is argued that there was no evidence that the defendant lived a mile and a half or any other distance from Biegel\u2019s place of business; that, as in the first error alleged, there was no evidence of \u201ca lot\u201d of other cleaning stores, and that the prosecutor was expressing his own opinion and belief as to the defendant\u2019s guilt. The prosecutor\u2019s first statement was not entirely without foundation. In the defendant\u2019s conversation with the detective from the robbery unit the distance of one and a half miles was mentioned; and the defendant testified that there were other cleaning shops between his home and Biegel\u2019s shop. The phrase \u201ca lot\u201d may have been an exaggeration but the defendant was not prejudiced thereby. As to the second statement: counsel for the State had the right to argue to the jury his belief that the evidence warranted a conviction \u2014 and that was all he was doing in this case.\nThere were no substantial errors in the trial and the evidence established the defendant\u2019s guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The judgment of the Criminal Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSULLIVAN, P. J. and SCHWARTZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE DEMPSEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Melvin Friedman, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James B. Klein, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Walter Bell, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 51,329.\nFirst District, Third Division.\nMay 18, 1967.\nMelvin Friedman, of Chicago, for appellant.\nDaniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James B. Klein, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0048-01",
  "first_page_order": 54,
  "last_page_order": 58
}