People v. Robinson

Decision Date19 May 1961
Docket NumberNo. 35763,35763
Citation22 Ill.2d 162,174 N.E.2d 820
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Theodore ROBINSON, Plaintiff in Error.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Leah I. Brock, Chicago (Alice D. Johns, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Gallagher and Leo F. Poch, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

DAILY, Justice.

At a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County, the defendant, Theodore Robinson, was convicted of murdering Flossie Mae Ward and was sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of his natural life. Upon writ of error he now contends that: (1) he was denied due process of law when the trial court failed, of its own volition, to summon a jury to determine his sanity at the time of trial; (2) the People failed to overcome the proof that he was insane at the time the murder was committed; and (3) his constitutional rights were further violated when the court refused to permit him to subpoena a material witness.

The decedent had known defendant since 1955 and had lived with him as his wife for some time prior to the homicide, despite the fact she was then legally married to another man. Defendant called regularly at the Chicago restaurant where decedent was employed as a night waitress and usually escorted her home from work. Approximately one week before the murder, the decedent's legal husband also appeared at the restaurant and the two men had a heated argument over the woman's affections. On the night of February 28, 1959, decedent was working as usual and at about 10:30 P.M. defendant entered the restaurant door with a revolver in his hand. He was admonished by decedent not to 'start anything tonight,' but according to those present defendant jumped over a counter, rushed towards the victim and fired into her body, inflicting wounds which caused her death.

Neddie Batts and Jim Hackman, other restaurant employees, testified they were present and saw defendant fire the fatal shots. Clarence Starr, a Chicago police officer, told of arresting defendant and finding the murder weapon in defendant's coat pocket shortly after the arrest, while another officer, Robert Breckenridge, testified as to the police lineup at which the eye witnesses had identified the defendant.

The defendant did not testify in his own behalf. However, his mother, Willie Peterson, related he had been struck in the head with a brick when he was seven years old and thereafter 'acted a little peculiar but not enough that I took time out to see about him because I had to work.' She further stated defendant had entered the military service in 1945 and that, on one occasion while home on furlough, he had kicked a hole in a family bar for no apparent reason. She said he was sullen and frequently complained of headaches after he returned from military service, that he would not consult a doctor, and that he was admitted to the Kankakee State Hospital in 1951 where he remained some six to seven weeks. About a year later, while separated from his wife, defendant fatally shot their baby and attempted suicide, after which he was tried and confined to the penitentiary until September, 1956. Thereafter, according to his mother, he became involved in many fights and she signed complaints against him in 1958 and February, 1959, but he was not arrested by the police. Based upon such facts, it was her opinion that defendant was insane and didn't know right from wrong. On cross-examination she testified that her son started drinking heavily after he got out of the service and that when he acted strangely, sometimes he would be drinking and sometimes not.

A friend of the family, Alice Moore, also testified to the occasion when defendant was home on furlough from the service, fourteen years before the trial, and said that she observed the hole he had kicked in the bar, and that when she tried to talk to him he either sat with his head down staring at the floor or looked at her glassyeyed. Based upon the incident, the witness expressed an opinion that defendant is insane 'when he is in those moods.'

Defendant's grandfather, William Langham, testified that the former had not been right since he got out of the service, that he often walked away abruptly from his work as a painter and appeared in a daze, and that on one occasion defendant had quarrelled with his wife (defendant's) and threatened to burn her clothing. He said he had seen defendant a few days before the murder of Flossie Mae Ward, that he noticed nothing unusual, and that defendant was then just giddy as always, 'carrying on a little fun.' It was his opinion that defendant was insane and that he had been partly insane at all times.

Helen Calhoun, defendant's aunt, stated she had observed unusual conduct on the part of defendant just prior to his admittance to the State Hospital at which time he was 'stary-eyed' and afraid someone was going to kill him and the witness. She also related that defendant had shot the baby in her apartment and that, just prior to that crime, he was sick, prancing, nervous, and 'just staring wild.' The witness also testified defendant had lived in her house from November, 1956, to January, 1957, and was very nervous during that period. Based upon the incidents to which she testified, it was her opinion that defendant was presently mentally sick.

The medical record from the Kankakee State Hospital, which was admitted into the record by stipulation, set forth that defendant had been drinking heavily when admitted; imagined he heard voices and saw snakes, elephants and other animals, and thought he was going to be physically harmed. The record further indicated that defendant thereafter gained insight into his condition, tried to cooperate, and that he had recovered from his illness when discharged. Also noted in the report was that defendant had kicked the hole in his mother's bar because she had refused to give him money. It was also stipulated that defendant was adjudged sane by a restoration proceeding in 1953, and that if Dr. William Haines, director of the Behavior Clinic of the Criminal Court of Cook County, was called as a witness, he would testify that defendant knew the nature of the murder charge against him and was able to co-operate with his counsel in the defense to such charge.

The trial, adjudication, or sentence of a person charged with a criminal offense, while insane, violates his constitutional rights and is also expressly prohibited by statute. People v. Bender, 20 Ill.2d 45, 169 N.E.2d 328; Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 38, par. 593. We have thus held that if, before or during trial, facts are brought to the attention of the court, either from its own observation or by suggestion of counsel, which raise a bona fide doubt as to a defendant's present sanity, it becomes the duty of the court to impanel a jury to determine whether the accused is capable of understanding the nature of the charges against him and of co-operating with his counsel. People v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • People v. Moore
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 1 d5 Junho d5 1990
    ...and testimony presented at trial the failure of these witnesses to appear at trial did not amount to error. People v. Robinson (1961), 22 Ill.2d 162, 170, 174 N.E.2d 820, 824; People v. Nash (1967), 36 Ill.2d 275, 281, 222 N.E.2d 473, The defendant also protests that he was not given certai......
  • People v. Lego
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 20 d5 Fevereiro d5 1987
    ...has failed to show that the witnesses desired were material to his defense, and their testimonies relevant. (People v. Robinson (1961), 22 Ill.2d 162, 170, 174 N.E.2d 820, cert. denied (1961), 368 U.S. 857, 82 S.Ct. 97, 7 L.Ed.2d 55.) Appropriate discovery procedures were available to defen......
  • People v. Redmond
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 27 d5 Setembro d5 1974
    ...In Illinois the common law rule was that a defendant had to introduce evidence that raised a reasonable doubt. (People v. Robinson (1961), 22 Ill.2d 162, 174 N.E.2d 820; People v. Skeoch (1951), 408 Ill. 276, 96 N.E.2d 473; People v. Patlak (1936), 363 Ill. 40, 1 N.E.2d 228. The common law,......
  • People v. Foster
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 22 d4 Dezembro d4 1977
    ...abandoned habits, or the commission of atrocious crimes are not in themselves evidence of insanity (see People v. Robinson (1961), 22 Ill.2d 162, 167, 174 N.E.2d 820, 823), these factors may be considered. The defendant lived in the apartment approximately 20 days with the decomposing body ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT