Davis v. People
| Decision Date | 15 May 1885 |
| Citation | 114 Ill. 86,29 N.E. 192 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Warren county; ARTHUR A. SMITH, Judge.
Indictment against Isaac P. Davis for the murder of his brother, James K. Davis. Defendant was found guilty of manslaughter, and he brings error. Affirmed.
McKenzie & Calkins and Grier & Dryden, for plaintiff in error.
George Hunt, Atty. Gen., and John W. Matthews, State Atty., for the People.
At the January term, 1884, of the Warren county circuit court, an indictment was presented in open court by the grand jury, charging Isaac P. Davis with the murder of James K. Davis. In the first count of the indictment it is charged the murder was committed with a ‘singletree,’ in the second that it was done with a ‘false standard of a wagon,’ and in the third that it was done with a deadly weapon to the grand jury unknown. At a trial of the cause had at the September term, 1884, defendant was found guilty of manslaughter in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and the jury, by the verdict, fixed the term of punishment defendant should suffer at five years in the penitentiary. The motion made by defendant for a new trial was overruled, and the court pronounced judgment on the verdict. To reverse the judgment against him, defendant brings the case to this court on error.
Much stress is laid on the point made, that the verdict is not warranted by the evidence, and therefore it was error in the court to overrule the motion made for a new trial. The earnestness with which this point in the case is pressed on the attention of the court has induced a most careful examination of all the evidence contained in the record. It is seen that much of it is irrelevant, and illustrates no phase of the case. ‘The killing took place in the field, where defendant and his hired hand and two little sons were gathering corn. These were all the persons that witnessed the affray. Only a brief period elapsed from the time deceased came into the field until he was struck down with a single blow, that proved mortal. It would seem the details of the sad controversy between defendant and the deceased might be briefly told by the few persons present, and yet this record contains many hundred pages of testimony, closely written. Really what occurred in the field where the mortal combat took place was briefly told, for the facts were necessarily few, and could be readily stated, as was done by the witnesses. This immense volume of testimony consists mostly of contradictory statements of many of the witnesses, and of the details of matters occurring elsewhere. Voluminous as the record is, it has been patiently examined, with a view to see whether the verdict is warranted by the whole evidence, and the conclusion reached from such examination is, the verdict is fully sustained. It would answer no good purpose to enter upon any close analysis of the entire testimony. Only those facts occurring in the field are important to be considered. It is proved deceased entered that field alone, and was carried home in an insensible state, from which he never recovered. No one in his interest was present to give his version of what took place. The history of what occurred comes alone from defendant, his two little sons, and the hired man. Counsel concede, as the truth is, there is a conflict in the evidence, not only as to which of the brothers began the affray, but also as to its cessation and renewal. No two of the witnesses state what occurred precisely alike. This is not a matter that militates against the truthfulness of their respective statements. The events occurred rapidly, and were of the most exciting character. It is no wonder the persons that witnessed the affray may not have been able to describe all that took place exactly alike. It would have been singular if they had done so. As to the principal fact, that defendant struck the fatal blow that caused the death of deceased, there is no controversy. It is an admitted fact. But with what instrument-whether a false standard from the wagon, or a single-tree-deceased was struck, or whether deceased was pursuing defendant, or defendant was pursuing deceased, at the time the blow was struck, are all matters about which the evidence is conflicting. Controversy as to what instrument was used to inflict the wound arose at the inquest that was held over the body of the dead man. The manner in which the witness McManus (defendant's hired-man) was examined, shows that in some way it had already become understood, or was suspected, the blow was given with a single-tree. This is evident from the fact the witness was examined concerning that matter, and he denied he had told any one defendant took the single-tree off the wagon, or that he told him to do it. How did it become so soon suspected the single-tree was used by defendant? Some one must have told or suggested it. Witnesses say defendant himself told it the night on which his brother's death occurred, but this defendant denies. It is clear the controversy as to the weapon used did arise at the time or before the inquest was held, and it is a most significant fact neither defendant nor McManus stated at the inquest what instrument was in fact used, nor did either of them say the single-tree was not used. Both defendant and McManus stated more in detail what occurred in the field, in their examination at the trial, than at the inquest, or else their testimony is more fully reported on the latter occasion. An effort was made to break the force of the testimony of McManus, as given on the trial, by a most severe cross-examination, and by proving many contradictory statements made by him out of court concerning the case and as to what his testimony would be. It must be admitted the witness McManus made many conflicting statements concerning the facts of the case, some of them in regard to material matters, and others as to matters wholly immaterial. Some denunciation of this witness is indulged by counsel, and yet not one of his neighbors, in the midst of whom he lives, is found to say his character for truth and veracity is bad. That his testimony on the trial and at the inquest is different concerning some material facts may be admitted; and yet, when his statements as to what did actually occur in the field are subjected to a close scrutiny, it will be seen there is very little that is variant. As reported, his first examination was very meager, and it may be he omitted to state many things at the inquest that he afterwards stated on the trial. It is this omission to state all that occurred that makes his testimony seem to be so very different on his last examination. On the trial the testimony given by McManus at the coroner's inquest was introduced in evidence by defendant himself, so the jury had an opportunity to see wherein it was variant, as to all material facts, from that given on the trial. The witness confesses, without reserve, his statements at the inquest were not all the truth,-that he suppressed much that was material. At the time, he was in the employ of defendant, and was induced, as he says, by the earnest entreaties of defendant and his family, to suppress many material facts before the coroner's inquest, as he did. The reason assigned for his action in that respect is not without something in its support that palliates it, but of course not enough to justify it. It was an hour of intense excitement to all concerned, and defendant and his family were overcome by the distress that had come upon them. It is by no means unnatural the witness should feel inclined to favor defendant so far as he could, and in that way relieve defendant from the shock of a great sorrow that had so recently and so suddenly come upon him.
It will be seen that on the trial the witness McManus assumed to state all that occurred between the brothers in the field. According to his testimony, deceased had ceased the quarrel with defendant, and was standing still on ground he claimed to have in his rightful possession; that he warned defendant not to strike him; that he told him he was unarmed; and that while standing in that position defendant deliberately struck him a blow with a single-tree, that shortly produced death. This account of the manner of the killing was not given by the witness at the inquest, and for that reason it is said he is unworthy of belief. The force of the argument on this branch of the case may be admitted in a measure, but not to the extent insisted upon. It is quite certain the jury did not give full credence to the details of facts occurring in that fatal field as given by McManus on the trial, or else it is hardly probable this verdict would ever have been for manslaughter. As the facts are stated by McManus on the trial, the killing was deliberate, willful murder. But the jury no doubt took another view of the case,-that the killing was done in the midst of a heated quarrel between the brothers, and the crime was therefore manslaughter. This, indeed, is a most favorable view for defendant. Considering the testimony of McManus, both before the coroner and at the trial, and that given by defendant himself at the inquest, in connection with the facts and circumstances proven about which there is and can be no controversy, this verdict is not only warranted, but one imposing a much severer punishment might be sustained. It appears that when deceased came into the field a heated controversy at once arose between the brothers concerning the corn. Angry words passed, and, according to the testimony of McManus be fore the coroner, the first overt act of violence was committed by defendant. It is said defendant pulled a false standard out of the wagon and raised it over the head of deceased, and told him to go home, and then deceased took after the accused, and run him around the wagon. The witness was not positive that deceased had a knife in his hand,-saw something...
To continue reading
Request your trial