May v. People of State

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SHELDON
• Citation: May v. People of State , 92 Ill. 343, 1879 WL 8531 (Ill. 1879)
• Decision Date: 30 June 1879
• Parties: RICHARD J. MAYv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

92 Ill. 343

1879 WL 8531 (Ill.)

RICHARD J. MAY

v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1879.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Scott county; the Hon. CYRUS EPLER, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. KNAPP & RIGGS, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. JAS. K. EDSALL, Attorney General, for the People:

The amendment of the record in this case was made at a subsequent term, but the cause was still pending and undetermined in the court. The power of the court to permit the amendment was sustained in Phillips v. The People, 88 Ill. 160. In that ruling this court followed the tenor and spirit of the modern authorities. Bodkin v. The State, 20 Ind. 281; Franklin v. The State, 28 Ala. 12; Weighorst v. The State, 7 Md. 450; Francis v. The State, 6 Fla. 313.

The court has much greater power and discretion in this regard while the cause is still pending and all the parties before it, than after final judgment. Coughran v. Gutcheus, 18 Ill. 390; Cairo and St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Holbrook, 72 Id. 419.

While the cause is still pending, any evidence which satisfies the court as to the propriety of the proposed amendment, is sufficient. Bishop Crim. Proc. § 1160; Mayo v. Whitson, 2 Jones N. C. 231.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an indictment for the larceny of a horse, the property of one Joseph G. Blackford, upon which the defendant was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

We are of opinion the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.

There is no competent evidence of any larceny having been committed aside from the confessions of the defendant, and even they are quite meagre to that end. The most to be derived from them is that the defendant took the horse and traded it off, and upon going to the person to whom he said he had traded the animal, it was found in that person's possession. One witness testified that Blackford had the horse in his possession before the time “he is said to have been taken; saw horse put in Frank Hardesty's stable the evening before time in question--heard about horse being taken next morning.” Another witness testified that he saw the horse in Blackford's possession not long before the time “he is said to have been stolen.” This is really all the testimony there is in the case as to a larceny having been committed. No one of the witnesses testifies to having known personally of the larceny charged. Neither Blackford nor Hardesty testified in the case. They are the ones, presumptively, to have known of the larceny, had one been committed. In The People v. Hennessey, 15 Wend. 147, the court, in laying it down that the confessions of a party to an individual merely, uncorroborated by circumstances, and without proof aliunde that a crime has been committed, will not justify a conviction, observe: “The truth is, no court will ever rely upon the confession alone, when it is apparent that there is evidence aliunde to prove that an offence has been committed.” In 1 Greenleaf Ev. § 217, it is said: “In the United States, the prisoner's confession, when the corpus delicti is not otherwise proved, has been held insufficient for his conviction; * * * and it (this opinion) seems countenanced by approved writers on this branch of the law.” And see The People v. Badgley, 16 Wend. 53.

The indictment was found at the October term, 1878, of the circuit court of Scott county. The trial was had at the subsequent May term, 1879, of that court. After the rendition of the verdict, the State's attorney moved for an order to have the clerk enter nunc pro tunc the return of the indictment into open court on the 30th day of October, 1878,--the record, up to the time of the motion, not showing that the indictment...