Falk v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 November 1866 |
| Parties | WILLIAM E. FALKv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Hardin county; the Hon. WESLEY SLOAN, Judge, presiding.
This was an indictment against William E. Falk, charging him with the murder of John C. Worthington, in August, 1866. It was returned to the Circuit Court of Hardin county, during that same month. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Mr. M. C. CRAWFORD, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. T. S. CASEY, State's attorney, for the people.
This was an indictment in the Circuit Court of Hardin county, against the plaintiff in error for murder. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and sentence of death was passed upon him, and a short day fixed for his execution.
To reverse this judgment, this writ of error is prosecuted, and various errors are assigned. The record is voluminous, and all the evidence preserved in the bill of exceptions which was tendered and signed in proper time on exceptions taken on the trial, and in overruling a motion for a new trial.
There was but one witness called and examined as to the charge in the indictment, and that was one Fortner, who, from his own statement, was particeps criminis. He, with the prisoner and one Thomas, called “blind Tom,” were the parties, if the witness is to be believed, who committed the deed, and under circumstances of great atrocity.
We have examined the testimony with great care, and have come to the conclusion, reluctant as we always are to disturb the verdict of a jury, that this case ought to go to another jury.
The rule, that an appellate court will not interfere to set aside a verdict, unless it is palpably against the evidence, obtains in the largest sense in civil cases, but well considered cases are to be found in books of authority, where it is not applied to the same extent in criminal cases, and especially in cases where life is at stake. Among other cases which might be cited, going to show that the strong language of the rule in civil cases is not applied in criminal cases, is that of Dains v. The State, 2 Humphreys 442. That was a case for an assault with intent to murder, and a verdict of guilty. On error to the Supreme Court, it was held, that the rule that the court will not grant a new trial upon the facts, unless the jury shall appear to have been guilty of great rashness, did not apply to criminal cases. In such cases, new trials have been constantly granted by this court, upon its conviction that the verdicts were not warranted by the proof.
That court, not believing from the facts in the record, that the prisoner struck the blow with premeditation and deliberation, though the jury found he had so struck it, the judgment was reversed and a new trial awarded.
Without adopting this as a rule of this court, we have no hesitation in saying, that in a capital case, when this court, on considering the whole record, shall be satisfied justice has not been done, though it should not appear the jury had acted rashly by deciding against the evidence, it would be the duty of this court to send the cause to another jury. In such case we could not be satisfied to pass the dread sentence of death upon a prisoner without a further investigation, and especially in a case when the only witness stands as an accomplice in the deed, his character for truth, if not impeached, much shaken by the testimony of most respectable men, and the accused proved to have always sustained a good character. It is, however, urged by the counsel for the prosecution, that the witness was corroborated by circumstances attending the transaction detailed by other witnesses. These were the admissions of the prisoner that he crossed the river on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horn v. State
...Ry. Co. (Utah), 26 P. 295; Keaggy v. Hite, 12 Ill. 100; Brown v. Comm. (Ky.), 69 S. W., 1098; State v. Debolt (Kan.), 37 P. 992; Falk v. People, 42 Ill. 331; Dains v. State, Humph., 442; People v. San Martin, 2 Cal., 485; People v. Acosta, 10 Cal. 196; People v. Ah Lay, id., 301; People v. ......
-
People v. Thiede
... ... defendant was deprived, and he thereby did not have a fair ... and impartial trial. Bishop Crim. Pro. § 145; State ... v. Daherty, 60 Me. 509; State v. Beswick, 13 R ... I. 211; Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N.Y. 202; 18 Howard, 276; 96 ... U.S. 101 ... "A conviction contrary to the weight of evidence will be ... set aside." U. S. v. Duval, Gilpin, 356; ... Com. v. Ruggs, 5 Pick. 429; Falk v. People, ... 42 Ill. 331; Bedforth v. State, 5 Hump. 553; Wharton ... Crim. Pl. & Pr. § 813; Malone Crim. Briefs, p. 438; ... Schusler v ... ...
-
People v. Sawhill
...or a higher reviewing court.’ This quoted part of the instruction was in effect held erroneous by this court in the opinion in Falk v. People, 42 Ill. 331, where it was stated that the jury should have been ‘left to their own responsibility alone to decide on the guilt or innocence of the p......
-
People v. Nitti
...it has misapplied the law in weighing certain evidence an appellate court will direct the case to be submitted to another jury. Falk v. People, 42 Ill. 331. In support of the motion to vacate the judgments, plaintiffs in error filed affidavits stating that they did not employ the attorney w......