People v. Steinbuch

138 N.E. 137, 306 Ill. 441
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 21, 1923
DocketNo. 15052
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 138 N.E. 137 (People v. Steinbuch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Steinbuch, 138 N.E. 137, 306 Ill. 441 (Ill. 1923).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Farmer

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs in error, Jacob Steinbuch, Robert Poser and Thomas Hebson, were convicted in the criminal court of Cook county for robbery. Steinbuch was convicted of robbery with a gun and the other two for robbery, simply. Wilbur Moore was indicted jointly with plaintiffs in error, but at the conclusion of the evidence the indictment as to him was nolled.

The robbery was committed about two o’clock in the morning of January 29, 1922, in the yard of the Dempster Inn, which is located at the crossing of the Waukegan road, a north and south road, and Dempster avenue, which runs east and west. Edwin S. Black testified he, in company with a woman, drove to Dempster Inn about ten o’clock at night, January 28. They were in a two-passenger Dodge roadster, which had a winter top and side curtains. They parked the car about fifty feet from the inn, went in and remained there till about two o’clock in the morning. There were about thirty people in the inn and about a dozen cars parked in the yard. Black said he probably drank two or three high-balls. He testified he and his companion went to the car to leave about two o’clock in the morning, got in the car and while he was putting on his gloves the side curtain was broken in by a man who thrust a revolver against his head and ordered him to hold up his hands, which he did. Two men on the opposite-side took his companion out of the .car. The man with the gun continued to hold it on Black and told him to keep his hands up or he would plug him. The two men pushed the woman back in the car. The man with the gun, whom Black identified as Steinbuch, was on the running-board on Black’s side of the car. After the woman was taken out of the car, one of the men on the opposite side of the car from the man who had the gun got into the car, went through Black’s pockets and took from him $100 in money and some other property of smaller value. Then one of the men Black could not identify got in the car with him and his companion, the man he identified as Steinbuch stood on the running-board on Black’s side of the car and one man stood on the running-board on the opposite side. Black testified Steinbuch ordered him to drive west on Dempster road. He backed his car about fifty feet to Dempster road and then started to drive west. He had not driven more than twenty feet when he heard a shot, which appeared to come from three or four hundred yards in their rear, and Steinbuch said, “They have got Frank,” and ordered Black to drive west as fast as he could. As we understañd Black’s testimony, at about the time the shot was fired one man jumped off the car. After one man had left the car the man who was in the car got out on the running-board. After Black had driven four or five hundred yards Steinbuch told him to stop and said to the other men they would go back and help him, meaning Frank. They jumped off the car and told Black to drive west as far as he could. Black reported the robbery to the police, and testified he was taken the next day to the station “and made to identify the men, if possible,” who. held him up. There were several detectives in the room and three or four men were marched by the witness and he was asked if he identified any of them. He did not say anything in the presence of the men brought in for identification but testified he identified Steinbuch as the man who broke through the curtain and held the gun on him. He was unable to identify any of the other men who took part in the robbery. The woman who was with Black did not testify.

William Strumm, a motorcycle policeman and deputy sheriff of Cook county, testified that he and his partner, officer Scfranslcy, who is now dead, about 2:30 in the morning were passing along the road in Scfransky’s car and noticed a Hudson car about a block from Dempster Inn. It was parked on what is called the Old Telegraph road, about two hundred feet north of Dempster road, and from the way it was parked and the fact that it had no lights it attracted their attention. . The witness went to the car. The doors were open but no one was in the car. He looked through it and found a revolver holster in it. He got in the car, started the engine and shut it off again. Officer Scfransky left him there, went back to Dempster road, got in his car and drove éast. The witness concealed himself near the car, and in about five or ten minutes Poser came to the car, got in and tried to start it. Witness went to the car and ordered Poser to hold his hands up. Poser started to get out of the car backwards, holding up his left hand but put his right hand back toward his hip pocket, and the witness then shot him in the leg and placed him under arrest. Very shortly after, Scfransky came up in his car with Hebson. The witness said Poser told him they were out there with some girls; that the girls were walking around somewhere on the road or were at Dempster Inn. Witness took Poser in the Hudson car and Scfransky took Hebson in his car. They took Poser to a hospital to have his wound attended to, and from there took both Poser and Hebson to the police station. The Hudson car belonged to Steinbuch, and he was arrested at his home about five or six o’clock in the morning and taken to the police station.

All three of the plaintiffs in error testified in their own behalf and denied having anything to do with the robbery or knowing anything about it. Hebson testified he lived in Evanston with his wife and child. He had lived there all his life. He is a bricklayer, employed by the McElligott Construction Company, of Evanston, and had been so employed several years. After supper the evening of January 28 he went to a barber shop and got shaved. After leaving the barber shop he saw Poser driving a car and hailed him. He got in the car to take a ride and they drove to Burgess’ place, where they remained about fifteen minutes and had a glass of beer. The car they were in belonged to Steinbuch, who is a brother-in-law of Hebson. From Burgess’ place they drove to Wheeling, which we understand is several miles from Evanston. They arrived there about ten o’clock and stayed three-quarters of an hour and then started toward home. On the way back they stopped at Ray’s Bungalow, on Milwaukee road, and remained about three-quarters of an hour. They then drove from Milwaukee road to Dempster road and stopped in the Shermanville road, (which we understand is the same as the Old Telegraph road,) about twenty feet off the road. Poser got out and went behind a barn to answer a call of nature, and he stayed around the car. Two men came up to the car and ordered him to put his hands up. They searched him and told him to get in the car. They took him to the Dempster Inn and then turned around and went back. He stayed in the officer’s car. They took him back to the Hudson car. Poser was there. They told witness to get out of the car. Poser said, “This fellow shot me.” Witness asked what he shot him for, and Poser replied, “He shot me for nothing.” Witness asked the officer to get him in a car and take him to a hospital. Poser got in the Hudson car and one of the officers drove it. Witness got into the officer’s car and they went to the St. Francis Hospital, in Evanston, and from there to the police station. The officer searched him. He had not been to the Dempster Inn that night. He thought it was about one o’clóck when the officer arrested him. He had never seen Black, did not hold him up or see anyone else do it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Baker v. State
138 N.E.2d 641 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1956)
The People v. Gooden
86 N.E.2d 198 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1949)
The People v. Ricili
79 N.E.2d 509 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1948)
The People v. Metcoff
64 N.E.2d 867 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1946)
Territory of Hawaii v. Van Culin
36 Haw. 153 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1942)
State v. Strain
262 N.W. 237 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1935)
The People v. Gold
196 N.E. 729 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1935)
The People v. McLaughlin
169 N.E. 206 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 N.E. 137, 306 Ill. 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-steinbuch-ill-1923.