Miller v. People of State

Decision Date31 January 1866
PartiesREUBEN MILLER, JOHN R. FRANCIS, CHARLES D. BARRETT AND JOHN BARRETT,v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR from the Circuit Court of Clark county; the Hon. CHARLES H. CONSTABLE, Judge, presiding.

This was an indictment against the plaintiffs in error, for robbery, found at the March Term, A. D. 1865. On the trial Isaac B. Randolph testified as follows:

“My name is Isaac B. Randolph; I live in Clark county; on the night of the 5th of March last, while I was in bed, asleep, the front door was bursted in and three men entered my house, one with a candle in his hand, the other two with revolvers; they were blacked; one wore a slouched hat and a handkerchief tied over it; they presented their revolvers and demanded my money; I gave them $50 out of my breeches; they said I had more, and called to some one outside to bring in the hay; I noticed the spokesman most closely; I went to a press in the corner and gave them $350 more; that was in an envelope; they then left, saying I should not be disturbed any more; I identify the prisoners as the three men; next morning I found they had taken a rail from the fence to burst open the door; I saw four tracks where they got the rail; two of them were ordinary; one of the other two tracks had a heel plate and large tacks in the toe; this track turned out more than common, and the fourth track turned in rather pigeon-toed; I followed these tracks about three-quarters of a mile; they went east a hundred yards, then crossed the road, and about a hundred yards beyond they seemed, from the stamping around, to have parleyed awhile; they were young men; one was spare made, one heavy set; they were in my house ten minutes; I afterward saw Miller as he was being taken to squire Tay lor's; he held up his foot and asked if I saw any tracks such as that would make; his boot had a heel plate and tacks in the toe; I told him I did see plenty such; I went to Taylor's; it was nearly midnight; about twenty men were in the room; I had just moved to the neighborhood and knew but few persons; I went in and selected the two Barrett boys; they were sitting together; I pointed to Francis as the other one; no one pointed either of them out, or indicated by description of clothing or otherwise which had been arrested; they were not then blacked; I never saw these men before the robbery; Francis was the one that had the handkerchief over his hat, the one that did the talking, and the one that received the money; the clock struck eleven a few minutes after they left.

R. Ratts: I saw the tracks at Randolph's house; on Monday night, myself and (eight others named), went to the house of Mrs. Francis; she was an aunt of Riley Francis, and he was staying there; we called for Riley; he came to the door; some of us had our coats wrong side out; some had their caps reversed, and one had his cap wrong side out; we told Francis we had come to take him to Taylor's; he asked for a writ; we told him we had one, but we had not; he came and we started toward the woods; Francis began to halloo; I caught hold of him, gave him a few jerks and made him hush. As we went on I asked him when Dave Packard had been up; he said about two weeks ago; I struck him with my open hand, and he then said he had been up a few days before; we went down in the woods; stopped and put a rope round his neck and over a limb; told him he knew what we wanted him to tell, that Randolph had been robbed, and we wanted him to tell all about it; he protested his innocence; we started to pull him up, but the rope broke; the second time his feet swung clear of the ground, but the rope broke again; people were then passing from church, and we moved about a quarter of a mile further into the woods; John Coons was riding; some one suggested to get his bridle rein and we did; we then hung Francis, and he gave the signal to be let down, which was a grip of the hand; he then said Barretts and Miller were in it but he was not; we hung him again, and when let down he confessed that he was in it; this was about eleven or twelve o'clock at night; Francis said that he, Reuben Miller, John and Charles Barrett, robbed Randolph; he said he was “kinder” lost when he got to Randolph's; some of the men marked on the ground the position of Randolph's house, the fences and road; he said Miller butted the door down with a rail; he and the two Barrett boys went in and Miller stayed out; he said they got some money out of Randolph's breeches, and some out of the safe in the corner, which was in an envelope; he said in coming from Randolph's they crossed the road and stopped about one hundred and fifty yards from it and talked awhile. I helped to arrest Miller; when we called he came to the door; he had his pistol in his hand; he put out his hand to shake hands, and then saw the other men and drew back; I pushed it; he kept setting chairs in the way, and I set them out till we got nearly to the wall; he then said he would go if we would let him take his weapons; we said he might; he had been drafted and pretended like he thought the military were after him; just after he put his revolver in its case, he took a pocket-book out of his pocket, and slipped it “sorter” under his coat to his wife who was standing just behind him; it bulged out; he then said we might search him, that he had nothing but pocket-change; did not make any effort to get the pocket-book; as we went along, Miller said: “That d--d clan has got me into this; I know where Allen Porter and Packard roost over on the knobs, and I'll have them taken and will help to do it; if you will hang Riley Francis up, he will belch her;” we took Miller by Randolph's; when Francis got to the squire's he denied all that he had said when we hung him in the woods; Francis said Miller had the money.

The remainder of the testimony sufficiently appears in the opinion of the Court.

Mr. W. L. DALANEY, for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. S. S. WHITEHEAD, State's Attorney, and Mr. C. M. MORRISON, State's Attorney, for the people.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an indictment in the Circuit Court of Clark county for robbery. The prisoners were convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary. They bring the case here by writ of error, and assign for error the giving the third, sixth, eighth, tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth instructions on behalf of the people, in refusing the eighth instruction asked by the prisoners, in permitting the confession of Francis to go to the jury, and in overruling the motion for a new trial.

The record shows the confession of Francis was extorted from him by a high-handed act of violence and wrong and under circumstances of unusual cruelty. At about midnight, he was taken from his home by a body of armed and disguised men to a neighboring wood, and there hung upon a tree by the neck, when, taken down almost senseless, he confessed that he, with the other prisoners charged, committed the robbery, and detailed the circumstances.

The rule has been long settled in our law that, while a free and voluntary confession of guilt is of the highest order of evidence, one extorted is never received. Unlike the laws of the polished and learned Romans, the cruel provisions of which allowed criminals, and even witnesses in some cases, to be put to the torture, for the purpose of forcing a confession, ours, in most commendable contrast, are fashioned in a spirit more just and humane.

The confession of Francis, against objections, should not have gone to the jury.

The eighth instruction asked by the defendants was the following:

“It is essential, in all criminal prosecutions, that the name of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • Spies v. People (In re Anarchists)
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 14 Septiembre 1887
    ...of all the evidence in the case.’ Earll v. People, 73 Ill. 329; Dunn v. People, 109 Ill. 635; May v. People, 60 Ill. 119; Miller v. People, 39 Ill. 457; Connaghan v. People, 88 Ill. 460. An instruction that the jury are not liberty to disbelieve as jurors, if from the evidence they believe ......
  • Henry v. People
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 25 Octubre 1902
    ...The instruction, in substance, is sustained by Crabtree v. Hagenbaugh, 25 Ill. 233, 79 Am. Dec. 324;Yundt v. Hartrunft, 41 Ill. 9;Miller v. People, 39 Ill. 457.’ See, also, Bulliner v. People, 95 Ill. 394;Chambers v. People, 105 Ill. 409. The instruction complainedof must be read in connect......
  • The State v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 21 Noviembre 1893
    ...on guilt." To the same effect, also, are the following cases: Toler v. State, 16 Ohio St. 583; Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410; Miller v. People, 39 Ill. 457; v. People, 31 Ill. 385; Watson v. Commonwealth, 95 Pa. 418; Turner v. Commonwealth, 86 Pa. 54; Landis v. State, 70 Ga. 651; Chappel v......
  • Stone St. Partners, LLC v. Chi. Dep't of Admin. Hearings
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 17 Febrero 2017
    ...evidence and trial procedure governing situations where a party has destroyed evidence (see 89 C.J.S. Trial§ 592 (2012) ; Miller v. People, 39 Ill. 457, 466 (1866) ; Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 5.01 (2011)), we infer that this missing evidence would not have supported the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT