People v. Beier
| Decision Date | 26 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 37920,37920 |
| Citation | 194 N.E.2d 280,29 Ill.2d 511 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Paula BEIER, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Robert H. Rice, East St. Louis, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and John M. Karns, Sr., State's Atty., Belleville , for appellee.
Paula Beier was charged with the murder of her husband, under an indictment in the circuit court of St. Clair County. She was found guilty after trial by jury, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than fourteen years nor more than fourteen years and one day. She appeals from this conviction and sentence, claiming that guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that improper evidence was received, that defendant was unduly restricted in the examination of her character witnesses, and that the prosecutor improperly argued matters to the jury which were not based upon evidence.
The record shows that the deceased, Thomas Beier, was employed at a bowling alley in O'Fallon, Illinois. He took care of the alleys in the evening and sometimes on Sunday. On Sunday afternoon, August 12, 1962, his wife Paula came to the bowling alley and had a conversation with him in the lounge or bar room of the establishment. The place was empty except for defendant and her husband. They talked about a paramour he had been seeing, and he became angry because defendant had complained to the girl friend about the affair. He kept telling defendant to go to his parents' home in Ohio for a few months.
After a while Beier got up and went outside to a cash register on the counter in the bowling alley, where a customer was waiting to pay money. He did not return to the table at which they had been sitting, and defendant started to look around for him. She went to the kitchen and that, according to her testimony, was the last she knew until she found herself calling for help at the window leading to the bowling alley.
Some time between four and four-thirty a group of teenage boys, who were out in the bowling alley bowling and playing a pinball machine, heard a sharp noise resembling the sound of a board falling on concrete. Shortly thereafter Mrs. Beier appeared at the window separating the alleys from the lounge or tavern room. Through an opening in the glass portion she shouted something to the boys which they did not understand, but they ignored her and went on with their playing.
A few minutes later the young men heard a similar sound, and Mrs. Beier reappeared at the window shouting 'Help, please help!' This time they investigated, going into the kitchen with her. She had been wounded in the left side, and on the floor they saw Thomas Beier lying in the pool of blood. He had been shot in the area of his jaw, but was conscious. A .32-caliber revolver was on the floor near his head. One of the boys asked what happened, and Mrs. Beier replied that he shot her. This was denied by Thomas Beier, who said his wife had shot him.
An ambulance was called and the two were taken to a hospital where Thomas Beier subsequently died, presumably as a result of the wounds he had received. At the hospital defendant's hands were given a paraffin test to determine whether or not they had recently fired a weapon, but no attempt was made at the trial to introduce evidence of the results obtained, if any. The gun belonged to one of the owners of the bowling alley, and had been kept in a drawer in the kitchen.
Paula Beier, 34 years of age, testified in her own behalf, stating that she remembered nothing after she entered the kitchen, and had no recollection or knowledge of the shooting. She related a personal history of hardship and harrowing experience. She was born in Czechoslovakia. When she was about twelve years old her father was twice taken to a concentration camp by German soldiers. Within a year after her father's release the Russians entered her homeland, took her by force to a building several miles from her home, and placed her under guard with other captured girls and women. There she was raped several times by Russian soldiers and was witness to a brutal incident in which a young woman got out of a line to help her mother and was severely beaten on the heard with the butt of a rifle by a Russian soldier. During the following year she was taken from place to place by the Russians, getting very little to eat and seeing people die from hunger and typhus. In 1946 she reached West Germany. She met Thomas Beier there in 1952, and they were married a few years later. Twice defendant became pregnant but each time she lost the baby. After coming to the United States the couple went to live with Beier's parents in Ohio. There she had to go to a hospital, where she was operated on and rendered sterile. Thereafter they moved from place to place, her husband being in military service. He soon began seeing other women, found fault with her for not giving him any children, and told her he was not coming home any more. In answer to a hypothetical question based upon defendant's background and the events leading up to the shooting, a psychiatrist expressed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Johnson
...which are not based on any evidence. (People v. Weaver (1982), 92 Ill.2d 545, 65 Ill.Dec. 944, 442 N.E.2d 255; People v. Beier (1963), 29 Ill.2d 511, 194 N.E.2d 280.) However, it is perfectly permissible for the prosecutor to state an opinion which is based on the record, or on a legitimate......
-
People v. Guajardo
... ... told Connie ... [262 Ill.App.3d 767] Assumptions and statements of fact not based on the evidence in the case may not be properly argued to the jury. (People v. Romero (1967), 36 Ill.2d 315, 223 N.E.2d 121; People v. Beier (1963), 29 Ill.2d 511, 194 N.E.2d 280.) In People v. Connors (1980), 82 Ill.App.3d 312, 37 Ill.Dec. 771, 402 N.E.2d 773, this court held that it was error for the prosecution to infer the content of testimony not heard ... In this case, however, the prosecutor did not state ... ...
-
People v. Makiel
... ... Prosecutorial arguments which exceed the boundaries of fairness and impartiality inherent in our system of adversary justice require reversal. (People v. Beier (1963), 29 Ill.2d 511, 194 N.E.2d 280; People v. Clark (1983), 114 Ill.App.3d 252, 70 Ill.Dec. 48, 448 N.E.2d 926; People v. Starks (1983), 116 Ill.App.3d 384, 71 Ill.Dec. 931, 451 N.E.2d 1298, appeal denied (1983), 96 Ill.2d 548.) Prosecutors, however, are afforded great latitude in closing ... ...
-
People v. Rainge, 79-565
...[221 N.E.2d 499]; People v. Burnett (1963), 27 Ill.2d 510, 517 [190 N.E.2d 338]. "Defendant, however, argues that People v. Beier (1963), 29 Ill.2d 511 [194N.E.2d 280], requires an opposite result. There this court held that it [112 Ill.App.3d 424] was error for the prosecutor to comment th......