People v. Burson

• Decision Date: 23 May 1957
• Docket Number: No. 34023,34023
• Citation: 143 N.E.2d 239,11 Ill.2d 360
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert BURSON, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 239

143 N.E.2d 239

11 Ill.2d 360

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert BURSON, Plaintiff in Error.

No. 34023.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 23, 1957.

Eugene T. Devitt, Chicago, John Heimdal, and Lester Galvin, Aurora, for plaintiff in error.

Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and John C. Friedland, State's Atty., Elgin (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, Ben Rifken, Elgin, and John S. Petersen, Aurora, of counsel), for the People.

DAVIS, Justice.

After trial by jury in the circuit court of Kane County, Robert Burson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He sued out writ of error to review the judgment, and the errors assigned and argued here are: (1) that the trial court deprived the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel of his choice; (2) that defendant's constitutional rights were violated by the court's refusal to allow defendant to dispense with appointed counsel and conduct his own defense; (3) that the court erred in admitting certain evidence, and (4) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. The record presents unusual conduct of the defendant, prior to and during the trial, which will be related and considered before the errors assigned.

The indictment charged the defendant with the murder of Harriet Montgomery, a woman 76 years of age, who was found dead in the bedroom of her home on August 4, 1955. Death was attributed to crushing head injuries produced by a blunt instrument. Ann Burson, the estranged wife of the defendant who had been living in the home of the deceased, had been separated from her husband for several months. Upon arrest, the defendant gave a statement to the police in which he denied the murder; told of his rejected love for his wife, and of her statement that he needed psychiatric care; and that he had sought to visit his wife but Mrs. Montgomery had refused him permission to enter the house. While thus frustrated in his efforts toward reconciliation, the defendant turned against his own relatives. He made threats against a brother-in-law and wife, a sister, a brother and sister-in-law, as well as Mrs. Montgomery. From these facts, it appears that the defendant, prior to his arrest, had developed fixed ideas of persecution which caused him to threaten retaliation against those supposedly opposing this reconciliation.

The indictment was filed on September 12, 1955. Two days later he appeared with E. A. Simmons, an impostor attorney, was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. Trial was set for October 24, 1955, and was thereafter continued. On December 5, 1955, Homer C. Griffin, an attorney, appeared on behalf of defendant and obtained a further continuance to December 7, on the ground that Simmons was ill. On that date attorney Griffin again appeared and assigned the same ground for further continuance. The State's Attorney then suggested that Simmons was not a licensed attorney, and filed a petition to produce Simmons in court. The case was continued to December 12, at which time it appeared that Simmons could not be located, and the State's Attorney then suggested the appointment of the public defender. The defendant objected and stated that he had funds and would talk to his relatives about the employment of an attorney. The case was then continued to December 16. The defendant contacted an attorney named Farrari, who could not appear on this date, and further time was given defendant. On January 3, 1956, the defendant, again present in court without an attorney, stated that he had dismissed Farrari and sought continuance to January 13. The court granted the continuance but appointed the public defender and attorney John Heimdal to represent the defendant, and advised him that if he secured his own counsel substitution could be made. The defendant objected and refused to accept appointed counsel. On January 13, the matter again came on for hearing, and appointed counsel advised the court that they had been to the jail repeatedly, but the defendant had refused to talk to them. The defendant admitted this, and again stated that he had counsel and did not need their assistance. He requested a further continuance to prepare his case; advised the court that his counsel would not be present until the exact date of the trial; and stated that he did not desire the services of appointed counsel even though his own counsel should fail to appear. The court then continued the case to February 13, and stated that it would go to trial on that date, whether or not defendant's counsel was present, and that the public defender and attorney Heimdal would be available if defendant wished their services.

Before the trial began, defendant's appointed counsel again sought a continuance on the ground that they had not had sufficient time to prepare the case because, except for the last four days, defendant had refused to talk to them. The public defender advised the court that the defendant, by virtue of his experience with Simmons, was distrustful of all counsel and people generally; and that counsel believed that they now had his confidence and co-operation and could prepare his defense if given time. The defendant then told the court that, when he had previously stated that he had counsel, he was referring to spiritual counsel; that he had been preparing to try his own case; and that if he did not get an attorney, he would still reject appointed counsel. An argument then ensued between the court and the defendant as to his right to reject counsel, one of whom them sought to withdraw from the case. The court denied the request and told the defendant that his rejection of counsel would not be accepted; that the court had appointed competent counsel and they would have to serve. The court denied the motion for continuance, whereupon the defendant asked the continuance, whether he believed in God, and said 'I will say that when the day of reckoning comes, you people who have shown me no leniency, shall also be shown none on reckoning day by God.'

The defendant participated in the voir dire examination of the jurors and inquired at length as to their religious beliefs and experiences. Typical examples of the questions asked were: 'Do you believe in God?' 'Do you believe in the inspired word as written in the Bible?' 'Have you read the Old Testament?' 'Have you read the New Testament?' 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God?' 'Have you ever been born again?' Many of the jurors, obviously perplexed by this interrogation, asked for his interpretation of being 'born again.' The defendant then explained his conception of salvation by quotations from the Bible, to which objections were sustained; and he frequently became argumentative.

The possible insanity of the defendant was first mentioned by one of his counsel in opening argument. The State's Attorney immediately objected on the ground that such defense had not been specially pleaded, and a lengthy argument then took place in chambers as to the manner in which the issue of insanity might be presented. The record indicates that neither court nor counsel differentiated between the question of insanity at the time of the alleged offense and at the time of trial. During this discussion, one of defendant's counsel stated that they had the right 'to have a prior hearing on the issue whether insanity does exist, not only preliminary to assigning it on the issues, but whether this man is able to go ahead with the defense.' The State's Attorney then argued that the defense of insanity had to be properly raised prior to trial. The court remarked that, if petition had been filed prior to trial, it would have been his duty to first determine the issue of sanity before trying the defendant on the indictment, but 'We are now embarked on the trial of the indictment to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant,' and the court ruled that the defendant was entitled to raise any defense he saw fit on the trial, including the defense of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense. The defendant, who was present during this colloquy, protested vigorously that he was sane and stated that in no case would he plead any type of insanity to the charge. However, in his opening statement to the jury, the defendant mentioned the subject of insanity; stated that he had been examined by two psychiatrists; and that he did not know 'of any time that I knew to any extent that I was insane.' He also made it clear to the jury that counsel were there representing him because the court appointed them and not because he wanted them, and said: 'I was supposed to appeal my own case and I am doing just that.'

Throughout the two-week trial, defendant persisted in arguing with the court, the State's Attorney and his appointed counsel in the presence of the jury. He characterized the court's adverse rulings on evidence as efforts on the part of the court to conceal the true facts and to aid the prosecution. His distrust of his appointed counsel increased as the trial progressed, even though the record reflects a conscientious effort on their part to properly represent him. The climax came when the defendant called his attorneys, as witnesses, to prove that they failed to give him their full support because of bargaining, collusion, prejudice and political pressure, and that he had objected to their representation throughout the trial. He examined both of them at length in a highly insulting manner. After the defendant had examined attorney Heimdal, public defender Galvin objected to being called as a witness on the ground that the tactics being pursued would damage the defendant's case before the jury, but the court compelled him to testify. At one point in the interrogation, the defendant said: 'Speak up, Mr. Galvin, if you have any guts,' and in conclusion stated: 'I have only one thing further to say, Mr. Galvin, that I would rather be in my shoes 100 times over than be in your...