People v. Arnett

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SIMPSON
• Citation: People v. Arnett, 408 Ill. 164, 96 N.E.2d 535 (Ill. 1951)
• Decision Date: 18 January 1951
• Docket Number: No. 31716,31716
• Parties: PEOPLE v. ARNETT.

Page 535

96 N.E.2d 535

408 Ill. 164

PEOPLE v. ARNETT.

No. 31716.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 18, 1951.

Kenneth A. Green, of Mattoon, for plaintiff in error.

Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., and Hugh Harwood, State's Atty., of Charleston (Harry L. Pate, of Tuscola, of counsel), for the people.

SIMPSON, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Henry C. Arnett, was jointly indicted with Billie Ray Lewis for the crime of burglary and larceny. Lewis pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the penitentiary. Plaintiff in error was convicted, after a trial by jury, and likewise sentenced to the penitentiary by the circuit court of Coles County. He brings writ of error to review the judgment of his conviction.

Errors relied upon as grounds for a reversal are (1) the court erred in denying a motion for directed verdict; (2) the confessions of plaintiff in error and his codefendant were improperly admitted in evidence; (3) the court erred in permitting the jury to retire and return a second verdict.

The evidence on the part of the People was to the effect that on the night of December 23, 1949, the filling station of Harry Shores, in Mattoon, Illinois, was forcibly entered and two automobile batteries, some flashlights, and the entire stock of cigarettes were stolen. Three days later plaintiff in error and Billie Ray Lewis were arrested by State highway patrolmen at Humboldt, Illinois. The car which they had been driving, but which had broken down at that place, contained the batteries, flashlights, and cigarettes previously stolen from the filling station in Mattoon. A filling station attendant in Humboldt testified that he saw plaintiff in error with another person at his filling station just prior to their arrest and acquired one of the batteries from the for $10. He was unable, however, to identify which of the two persons gave him the battery.

Billie Ray Lewis testified that he met plaintiff in error in the late afternoon of December 23; that they went to a tavern and drank some beer; that during the course of the evening they talked back and forth about being broke and about stealing some money; that later in the evening they went to the Shores filling station in Mattoon where he burglarized the filling station while plaintiff in error acted as lookout in the car which was parked in the alley nearby; that thereafter plaintiff in error helped him transfer the stolen articles from the back seat of the car into the rear compartment; that plaintiff in error was with him when he secured a loan of $10 for one of the batteries from a filling station operator in Humboldt. This testimony was substantially the same as that contained in the written confession made by Lewis soon after his arrest. At that time plaintiff in error also made a written confession of his complicity in the crime and stated that Lewis' confession had been read to him and that it was true. On the trial plaintiff in error admitted that he was present in the car when Lewis burglarized the filling station, but claimed that he was ill from drinking too much beer and knew nothing about the event until Lewis came back to the car with the stolen articles.

By his motions for a directed verdict at the close of the People's evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence, plaintiff in error raised the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction of the charges contained in the indictment. People v. Chiafreddo, 381 Ill. 214, 44 N.E.2d 888. In a criminal prosecution the fact issues are for the jury to decide, and this court on review will not disturb the jury's finding unless the proof on which such finding is based does not meet the requirements of the law. People v. Anderson, 375 Ill. 163, 30 N.E.2d 648. While the People's case rested strongly on the testimony of his codefendant, Billie Ray Lewis, a conviction may be based on the evidence of an accomplice even though it be uncorroborated, if it is of such a character as to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. People v. Flaherty, 396 Ill. 304, 71 N.E.2d 779. The evidence on behalf of the People was sufficient, if taken as true, to justify the jury in concluding that plaintiff in error was to keep watch while his accomplice, Lewis, perpetrated the crime. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were questions for the jury to determine, and this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury on those questions. People v. Switalski, 394 Ill. 530, 69 N.E.2d 315; People v. Orlando, 380 Ill. 107, 43 N.E.2d 677. Where the facts and circumstances in evidence show a common design, it is not necessary that each one take an active part in the commission of the crime in order to be guilty as principal. Whatever each of them did in furtherance of the common design was the act of the other and each would be equally guilty of the crime. People v. Powers, 293 Ill. 600, 127 N.E. 681.

At 2:00 P.M. on December 28, 1949, about three days after his arrest, Billie Ray Lewis, codefendant of plaintiff in error, signed a written confession in which he stated substantially the same facts as those testified to by him later at the trial. About an hour afterward plaintiff in error also signed a written confession in which he stated that the confession of his codefendant had been read to him and that it was correct; that he went to the Shores filling station on the night of December 23, 1949, with Billie Ray Lewis; that Lewis parked the car back of the station and that plaintiff in error was to let Lewis know if anything occurred while he was in the Shores station; that they had talked about being broke and in need of money and that he knew or had the idea that Lewis was to break into the station; that he saw Lewis with the batteries and a sack full of other articles; that he took some cigarettes from the...