Conley v. People

• Decision Date: 22 December 1897
• Citation: 48 N.E. 911,170 Ill. 587
• Parties: CONLEY v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

170 Ill. 587

48 N.E. 911

CONLEY

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1897.

Error to circuit court, Edgar county; F. Bookwalter, Judge.

James Conley was convicted of murder, and brings error. Reversed.H. S. Tanner and J. W. Howell, for plaintiff in error.

E. C. Akin, Atty. Gen., H. H. Vanseller, State's Atty., D. C. Hayle, C. A. Hill, and Frank T. O'Hair, for the People.

WILKIN, J.

At the March term, 1897, of the Edgar circuit court, plaintiff in error, James Conley, and Bertha Wilson were jointly indicted for the crime of murder, the charge being that they caused the death of the illegitimate child of said Bertha by strangling. They each entered the plea of not guilty, and were tried together at the same term of court to which the indictment was returned. The verdict of the jury was that the defendant Bertha Wilson committed the act charged in the indictment, but was at the time a lunatic or insane person, and that she had not entirely and permanently recovered from such lunacy or insanity. The judgment of the court as to her was that she be taken to the hospital for the insane, as provided by the statute in such cases. The defendant Conley was found guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of 14 years. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, and judgment entered upon the verdict, to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted.

The only ground of reversal insisted upon is that the conviction was not justified by the evidence. There is no controversy as to the fact that on the 10th day of March, 1897, Bertha Wilson was delivered of an illegitimate child, at her father's house, in Edgar county, this state, which was the same day found dead, concealed in a trunk in her room, with an apron string drawn and tied tightly around its neck. So far as the evidence discloses, she was alone, wholly unattended, at the time of its birth, and that her father and the other members of the family, although sleeping in the same house, knew nothing of the birth until the arrival of a physician, some hours later. The girl was about 21 years of age. Her mother had been dead for several years, and she, with four brothers and one or two sisters, lived with the father as a family; but whether all the other children were at home that morning does not appear. Her father, John Wilson, testified as follows: ‘On or about the 10th of last March, I got up about four o'clock in the morning. Made the fires. She came to my room, and said she felt sick to the stomach. I said, ‘Had I better go for the doctor or anybody?’ She said it would wear off, and she sat down in the rocking chair until half past four; and I got up again, and laid in the bed, within about a foot of her. I got up, and went in the dining room, made up a fire, and got breakfast. She said she would get breakfast, but she didn't get any better. I waked up the two boys, and we ate breakfast. She still sat in the rocking chair. They took their axes, and I done up the dishes. I gave her some coffee. She said she felt better, and I went over to camp. I told a fellow to send his wife over. I wanted to go for a doctor. When the doctor came, he said she had been pregnant. She told me what had occurred, and examined the house, and found it in the trunk. She did not tell me who the mother of the child was. She would not talk to me about it. She was within ten feet of me, and I didn't hear nothing of the crying or anything else, and the two boys were present with me at the time.' Dr. Darby, witness for the people, testified that he had known defendants, Conley and Bertha Wilson, since their births; that he called on Bertha March 10, 1897, found she had been pregnant and delivered of a child, with the afterbirth undelivered; that he made further investigation, and found the child in a trunk, with an apron string around its neck; thought its death was caused by strangulation; string was tied tight enough to strangle it; that no person can live with a cord as tight as that was around its neck; there was nothing about the child by which he could tell whether or not it had been born alive.

The evidence shows that plaintiff in error, Conley, was acquainted with Bertha Wilson; had visited her at her father's house; had sometimes taken her to church and neighbors' houses; and that this attention to her had extended back for a year or more prior to the birth of the child. The state relied upon the testimony of Bertha Wilson alone to connect plaintiff in error with the crime. On the first day of the trial, the prosecution called her as a witness, but, upon the court's explaining to her that she was not compelled to testify, she availed herself of her right, and refused to do so. On the following day she was again called by the prosecution, and upon this occasion was willing to testify for the state. Upon cross-examination she said she had talked with her uncle, one of the prosecuting witnesses, and the assistant prosecuting attorney, and that the latter had urged her to testify. Robert Wilson, the uncle referred to above, testified, regarding the conversation mentioned by her, that Bertha was to take the stand, and that he had said ‘they wouldn't say one word against her; there would be nothing against her; that it would be on Mr. Conley.’ This conversation appears to have been made in the presence of the assistant prosecuting attorney, and as a part of the conversation in which the assistant attorney urged her to testify. Bertha testified that plaintiff in error was the father of her child; that he had said for her to ‘kill it as she did do’; that, if she did ‘not do that, he would choke me or lay it out’; that she ‘was down at his house, and he came a piece with me, when he told me to kill it as I did.’ This was the substance of all her testimony as to Conley's guilt. Plaintiff in error testified that he knew Bertha a long time; had kept company with her some; that he had never had sexual intercourse with her at any time; and that there was never any conversation had between them about her child, nor what should be done with it if a child were born. There was a conflict between the testimony of plaintiff in error and that of the witness Robert Wilson, uncle of Bertha, as to a conversation had between them the day after the coroner's inquest. The testimony of Robert Wilson on this point was as follows: ‘I was in the sugar camp the day following the post mortem, when James Conley came. Well, we talked a little bit, and after a while, after we had talked perhaps 5 or 10 minutes, I said to him, ‘You and Bertha has caused right smart of trouble, looks like there will be in this neighborhood.’ He said, ‘What's that?’ I said, ‘She has had a child.’ I said, ‘It will cause a good deal of trouble. You might be the cause of it, for she has had a child, and it's killed or it's dead.’ He said, ‘Is that so?’ I said, ‘Yes, it is.’ And he says, ‘Did she kill it?’ I said, ‘I suppose so. That is what I understand from the coroner's jury, that she killed the child.’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘I am sorry of that.” At another time the same witness, referring to this same occasion and the reply made by Conley, said, ‘He stood a minute, and...