Adams v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1868 |
| Citation | 1868 WL 5001,47 Ill. 376 |
| Parties | WILLIAM ADAMSv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Crawford County; the Hon. H. B. DECIUS, Judge, presiding.
The facts fully appear in the opinion.
Mr. J. C. ALLEN and Mr. E. CALLAHAN, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL, Attorney General, for the people.
This was an indictment, in the Crawford Circuit Court, of William Adams, for the murder of Thomas Bostic. The jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter, and fixed the term of his imprisonment in the penitentiary at ten years.
A motion for a new trial was made by the prisoner, based on his own affidavit, and that of two other persons, alleging misconduct of the jury, and on the further ground of newly discovered evidence.
The court denied the motion, and rendered judgment on the verdict, and the cause is brought here by writ of error.
The points made here by the prisoner's counsel are, the modification, by the court, of prisoner's third instruction, and giving the twelfth and twentieth instructions on behalf of the people, and in refusing to give the prisoner's thirteenth and last instruction.
As to this last instruction, it was properly refused, as it had nothing to do with the case; it was wholly irrelevant, and the jury were not in a position to know what the decisions of the supreme court had been on questions of law. Whether final or not, was no concern of the jury in the particular case they were trying, nor were these decisions, multitudinous as they are, before the jury by the testimony, as it appears on the record. Under our statute, juries in criminal cases are the judges of the law as well as of the fact, and they have a right to pronounce on the law as it may seem in their opinion to be, as this court decided in Schnier v. The People, 23 Ill. 17, and Fisher v. The People, 23 ib. 283.
The third instruction of defendant, as asked, was as follows:
If the jury believe, from the evidence, that at the time Adams struck the blow or blows, that resulted in the death of Bostic, he, Adams, had reasonable grounds to believe that the killing of Bostic was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily harm, then the killing was justifiable, and the jury should find the defendant not guilty.
The court qualified this instruction, and it is alleged as error, by adding as follows: “Unless the jury further believe that the difficulty was commenced by the defendant for the purpose of taking the life of Bostic, or inflicting upon him a bodily harm.”
The objection to this qualification is made upon the assertion by the accused, that there was no evidence that he made an assault or commenced a difficulty with the deceased for the purpose of taking his life or doing him bodily harm, or for any other purpose.
Colliflower, the principal witness for the prosecution, stated in his testimony that he saw the whole transaction, and from his testimony, the jury might well infer the accused sought the difficulty with the deceased. While the doctrine is, as established by this court, in Schnier v. The People, supra.; Maher v. The People, 24 ib. 242, and Campbell v. The People, 16 ib. 17, that a man threatened with danger must determine from appearances and the actual state of things surrounding him, as to the necessity of resorting to self-defense, and if he acts from reasonable and honest convictions, he will not be held responsible, criminally, for a mistake as to the extent of the actual danger, where other judicious men would have been alike mistaken, at the same time, he has not the right to provoke the quarrel and take advantage of it, and then justify the homicide. This was the extent and purport of the qualification, and was entirely proper. For these reasons, the twelfth instruction for the people was right. It was as follows: If the defendant sought a difficulty with the deceased for the purpose of killing him, and in the fight did kill him, in pursuance of his malicious intention of taking the life of Bostic, they will find him guilty of murder, but if they find that defendant voluntarily got into the difficulty or fight with Bostic, but did not intend to kill at the time, and did not decline further fighting before the mortal blow was struck by him, and then drew his knife and with it struck and killed Bostic, they will find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, although the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Henry v. People
-
State v. Short
... ... 190, 192; Jones v. Gale, 22 Mo.App. 637; State ... v. Shoultz, 25 Mo. 128, 153; State v. Lewis, ... 118 Mo. 79, 23 S.W. 1082; People v. Hecker, 109 Cal ... 451, 42 P. 307, 30 L.R.A. 403; Bush v. People, 10 ... Colo. 566, 575, 16 P. 290; Stoffer v. State, 15 Ohio ... St ... 728; State v. Brown, 63 Mo. 439, 433; State v ... Cable, 117 Mo. 380, 22 S.W. 953; State v ... Vansant, 80 Mo. 67, 69; Adams v. People, 47 ... Ill. 376; Allen v. Com., 86 Ky. 642, 6 S.W. 645; ... Thumm v. State, 24 Tex.App. 667, 701, 7 S.W. 236; ... Hollis v. State, ... ...
-
Hollywood v. State
... ... practically denied his constitutional right to the assistance ... of counsel. ( State v. Pool, 23 So. 503; Dunn v ... People, 109 Ill. 635; Wray v. People, 78 Ill ... 212; Conley v. People, 80 Ill. 236; State v ... Simpson, 38 La. Ann. 24; State v. Ferris, 16 ... be used to refresh the memory of a witness or to contradict ... him. It was error to admit over objection the testimony of ... the witness Adams with reference to a conversation overheard ... by him between the defendant and his brother. It did not ... appear by that testimony that the ... ...
-
State v. Ballou
...since self-defense only obtains against an unlawful attack, and A.'s attack on B. was lawful." In other words, as held in Adams v. People, 47 Ill. 376, a man has no right to provoke a quarrel, and take advantage of it, and then justify the homicide. Self-defense may be resorted to in order ......