{
  "id": 2614757,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amos Jones, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1974-03-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 58945",
  "first_page": "198",
  "last_page": "201",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 Ill. App. 3d 198"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "288 N.E.2d 69",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ill.App.3d 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2671922
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/7/0515-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 N.E.2d 462",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill.2d 143",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2934870
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/54/0143-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.E.2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill.App.2d 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2472796
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/127/0444-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.E.2d 575",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 Ill.App.2d 827",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2535508
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/132/0827-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.E.2d 378",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill.2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2907564
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/48/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.E.2d 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ill.App.3d 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2843583
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/3/0262-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 442,
    "char_count": 7234,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.723027831667876e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5303581405711298
    },
    "sha256": "49318e1bfd479df63e993d62015439ef2da6022dffccec9e729fbb9cef6dcacf",
    "simhash": "1:cf5cb430f92e670b",
    "word_count": 1203
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:57.388760+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amos Jones, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant was found guilty after a bench trial of the offense of armed robbery, in violation of section 18\u20142 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 18\u20142) and was sentenced to a term of two to three years. He appeals arguing that the evidence is insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that he was denied a fair trial when the trial judge improperly based his finding of guilty upon testimony which was not admitted into evidence at the trial.\nSamuel Lipscomb testified for the State: On January 25, 1969, shortly after midnight, he was in the Kerfoot Liquor & Food Store located at 8462 South Vincennes, Chicago, Illinois. The owner, William Tillman, was behind the counter when, at approximately 12:30 A.M., the defendant came into the store with a second man. Both men had guns and announced a holdup. Shortly thereafter, a third man, also armed, came in. Defendant had been in the store approximately 20 minutes earlier that same evening. The men forced Lipscomb to give them his wallet and then ordered him to lie down on the floor. Defendant held a gun up to Tillmans head and told him to give them the rest of the money or he would kill him. Tillman complied. The witness described defendant\u2019s hair. It was odd looking, it appeared to be pressed, as if he were wearing a wig. Lipscomb further testified that as the men left they hollered \u201cBlackstone Rangers\u201d. The entire robbery took approximately 20 minutes.\nWilliam Tillman testified for the State. He is the owner of the Kerfoot Liquor & Grocery Store and that on January 25, 1969, at approximately 12:30 A.M., he was present in his store with Sam Lipscomb when the defendant and two other men entered carrying guns and announced a robbery, taking approximately $700. The defendant whose hair appeared to be pressed or straightened down as if he were wearing a wig was the first man to enter the store. The lighting in the store was very bright. The entire robbery took approximately 20 minutes. The next time Tillman saw the defendant was several months later in a courtroom. In referring to the defendant Tillman stated, \u201cYou can never forget his face.\u201d\nAmos Jones, defendant, testified for himself, that on January 25, 1969, he picked up his wife Jessie Mae Jones at the Sara Lee plant, Deerfield, when she got off work at 12:00 midnight. He then proceeded to his sister\u2019s house at 827 E. Bowens, Chicago, to pick up their kids, arriving there at approximately 1:00 A.M. Defendant\u2019s wife corroborated his testimony.\nDefendant\u2019s first contention on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the identification testimony was vague and uncertain. In a bench trial, credibility of witnesses is for the trial judge to determine. (People v. Wright, 3 Ill.App.3d 262, 278 N.E.2d 175.) The decision of the trial judge as to credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed unless it is based upon evidence which is so unsatisfactory as to raise a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt. (People v. Catlett, 48 Ill.2d 56, 268 N.E.2d 378.) The testimony of one witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even though contradicted by the accused. People v. Bonds, 132 Ill.App.2d 827, 270 N.E.2d 575,\nIn the case at bar, the testimony of Lipscomb and Tillman was positive and credible. They both testified that they observed the defendant in a well-lighted store during the robbery which took approximately 20 minutes. Minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses affect only the credibility of witnesses, which is a matter for the trier of fact to determine. (People v. Thomas, 127 Ill.App.2d 444, 262 N.E.2d 495.) The trial judge, after hearing all the evidence, determined that the two State\u2019s witnesses had sufficient time under adequate lighting to fix defendant\u2019s identity. After a complete review of the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court\u2019s determination was erroneous. The State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.\nIn this regard defendant also argues that his unrebutted alibi defense raises a reasonable doubt as to his gu\u00fct. A trial judge is not obliged to believe a defendant\u2019s alibi testimony. (People v. Jackson, 54 Ill.2d 143, 295 N.E.2d 462.) Here, the trial judge, after hearing all of the evidence, determined that the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime charged and we cannot say that defendant\u2019s alibi testimony raised a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.\nDefendant\u2019s second contention on appeal is that he was denied a fair trial when the trial judge improperly based his finding of guilt upon testimony which was not in evidence at the trial. At a pre-trial hearing on a motion to suppress, several police officers testified that a co-felon, Thomas Woods, had been arrested and had implicated the defendant in the robbery of the Kerfoot Liquor Store. At trial no such evidence was adduced and Woods did not testify. In summarizing the evidence, the trial judge made the following statement:\n\"And there can be no question about the fact that one of the robbers, Mr. Woods, started to jabber and in jabbering mentions the name of Amos Jones. Now, the jabbering of Mr. Woods gave a number of names. One of the names was Amos Jones. That in itself certainly would not be sufficient to find any kind of defendant guilty. The defendant is presumed to be innocent.\u201d\nThe trial judge then went on to summarize the evidence adduced at trial, including the testimony of the two eyewitnesses. The trial judge tiren said:\n\u201cI find that I am satisfied with these two State\u2019s witnesses, corroborating the testimony of each other and the statements made by Mr. Woods, apparently all add up to satisfy the court beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore the defendant is found guilty as charged in the indictment and a judgment will be entered on the verdict.\u201d\nDefendant now argues that the above statement by the trial judge indicates that he improperly considered the statements made by defendant\u2019s co-felon, Woods, in finding defendant guilty when such statements made at a hearing on a pre-trial motion to dismiss were not admitted at trial. A trial judge, sitting as trier of fact, is not entitled to base his conclusions regarding a defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence or otherwise consider matters not in evidence. (People v. Vine, 7 Ill.App.3d 515, 288 N.E.2d 69.) In the instant case, the trial judge\u2019s comments clearly indicate that he considered Wood\u2019s statements in making his decision that defendant was guilty. These statements, however, were not in evidence at the trial. This conduct was error.\nTherefore, defendant\u2019s conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nSULLIVAN, P. J., and DRUCKER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LORENZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul Bradley, Deputy Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (John F. Brennan, Kenneth L. Gillis, and Sharon Hope Grossman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amos Jones, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 58945;\nFirst District (5th\nMarch 1, 1974.\nPaul Bradley, Deputy Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (John F. Brennan, Kenneth L. Gillis, and Sharon Hope Grossman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0198-01",
  "first_page_order": 218,
  "last_page_order": 221
}