People v. Decker
| Decision Date | 19 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 15484.,15484. |
| Citation | 310 Ill. 234,141 N.E. 710 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. DECKER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Cumberland County; A. A. Partlow, Judge.
Oscar Decker and others were convicted of burgiary and larceny, and they bring error.
Reversed and remanded.Emery Andrews and Raymond G. Real, both of Mattoon, for plaintiffs in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Charles M. Connor, Acting State's Atty., of Toledo, and Virgil L. Blanding, of Moline, for the People.
Plaintiffs in error, Oscar Decker, Charlie Hall, and Everett Croy, were convicted in the circuit court of Cumberland county of burglary and larceny, and the two first named were sentenced to indefinite terms in the penitentiary and the other defendant, Croy, was sentenced to serve an indefinite term in the state reformatory. They have prosecuted this writ of error to review the record.
The evidence for the people is, in substance, the following: Jane Mayberry, wife of Jesse Mayberry, on April 16, 1922, was the owner of about 75 or 100 chickens, which at 7 o'clock on that evening were in her chicken house, about 30 steps south of her residence, the door of which chicken house was closed, but not locked. All of the chickens, except 21 or 22, were missing on the following morning, having been stolen the night of April 16, which was Sunday, after 7 o'clock. No commotion among the chickens or squawking by them on that night was heard. There was no blood discovered in the chicken house, and no unusual amount of feathers was found there, or other evidence that the chickens were killed at or near the henhouse. How the chickens were disposed of does not definitely appear from the record. About 10 o'clock that night it began raining, and rained heavily and continuously during the remainder of the night, but it did not rain any time on that day prior to said hour. In the henhouse on the morning of April 17 were found the tracks of two men. The tracks of one of them were made by small shoes, and the others by large ones. In the southeast corner of the henhouse the water had leaked onto the ground floor, and in this wet spot, where some ashes had been thrown, were marks or prints apparently made by a gunny sack, and there were two human tracks there, one an each side of the print marks of the gunny sack. The rain had been so heavy that all tracks on the outside of the henhouse had been obliterated. There were also some poles thrown down on which the chickens roosted, and there were some shoetracks under and near them. From the foregoing circumstances, which are not disputed, it is inferable that the chickens that were stolen were placed in the gunny sack and carried away, and the burglary of the henhouse must have taken place after 10 o'clock of the night of the burglary, and after it had rained considerably, and that it continued to rain heavily after the burglary had been committed.
The Mayberrys lived on the south side of a public road that runs east and west, about 50 or 60 yards east of the Mullen church, which is on the north side of the road. They left their home on April 16 about 7 o'clock and attended services at the Mullen church, which closed near 9 o'clock, or perhaps a few minutes after that hour. There at church Mrs. Mayberry saw the defendant Hall, who she said was a familiar person, as he was raised in that neighborhood. She stated that Hall a part of the time was at the church door, and part of the time at the window, and was ‘just looking in like the rest of the boys who were out there,’ and that she also saw him with two other parties, whom she did not recognize, sitting in a ‘shambly Ford car.’ She did not claim to see either of the other two defendants at church. Jesse Mayberry in the first part of his testimony stated that he did not see any of the defendants at church. Later he testified that about dusk he saw someone that resembled the defendant Decker pass his house in an old, ‘bum-looking car,’ about 50 yards from him. He further testified that between sundown and dark that evening he saw some parties down at the church that resembled the three defendants, but that he would not say positively that they were the parties he saw. Three of the people's witnesses, who knew the defendants, testified that they saw Hall at the church that Sunday night, but did not see Decker and Croy there. On of these witnesses testified positively that Decker and Croy were not there. Two of these witnesses testified that Hall left the church alone in his Ford car, going east, and that after he had driven his car east about 150 or 200 yards the car apparently ‘died on him’ and its lights went out, and that he stopped just about one minute, or long enough to crank it again, and that then its lights brightened up again and he drove east to the turn, about one-half mile east of the church, and then drove south. According to all the witnesses, it was near 9 o'clock when Hall left the church, going east.
All of the defendants testified in their own behalf and positively denied having stolen the chickens or of having been upon the premises of the Mayberrys. The evidence on their behalf showed that they left Effingham together in Hall's Ford car in the afternoon of the day in question, at which city Decker and Hall lived, and Croy was at work there. They drove to the home of Mrs. George Miller, sisterof Decker and halfsister of Hall, living in Montrose, and arrived there about 6:30 p. m. Hall then left Decker and Croy at Mrs. Miller's and drove to the Mullen church, which appears to be northeast of Montrose, and not very far away, although the distance is not given. Hall's statement was that he drove east of Montrose on the hard road, then north, and then west to the church, and that when he left the church he drove east, then south to the hard road, and thence to Mrs. Miller's, where Decker and Croy got into the automobile with him, and they immediately started on their return to Effingham. Just after they had passed the westerly limits of Montrose on their way to Effingham, they had a violent collision with another automobile, which tore a wheel off of each car, and threw the defendants and their car off the road and into a ditch. Hall claims to have left the church at Montrose about 20 minutes to 9 o'clock and while the people were standing, singing.
The church closed about 9 o'clock, and this collision occurred about 9 o'clock, according to the testimony of all the witnesses who viewed the scene of the wrecks. There were two men in the other automobile, and both of these men and the defendants agree that just after the collision their cars were about 50 yards apart, and that the occupants of each car immediately started for the other car to ascertain if any one was hurt. The two men in the other car, Gilbert Gaddy and John McCann, witnesses for the people, testified that just before the collision the lights of the defendants' car went out and then the collision occurred; that they did not see any chickens there or in the automobile of the defendants, and heard no noise made by chickens on the road there or in the automobile. One of them did testify that he heard a chicken squawk as he came back from Woody's garage, in Montrose, when he was about opposite a house near the road. He did not locate the chicken, except to say that it was about as close to his own car as to the other car, and that he did not pay any attention to it at the time.
A great number of people gathered at the scene of the collision just after it happened, and four of them testified for the people, and four for the defendants. All of these witnesses united in testifying that they did not see any chickens, or hear any chickens, at the scene of the collision, or at or near the car of the defendants. One of these witnesses, a farmer who lived on the road near there, and who had a lantern, testified, in addition to the foregoing, that he sat in the automobile of the defendants while the garage men were repairing the car of the other men, and that he did not see any chickens, or sign of chickens, about the automobile, or any sack. The garage men hauled the car of the defendants into Montrose after the other car was repaired, and their testimony is that there were no chickens, or sign of chickens, in or about this automobile. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Halkens
...287 Ill. 606, 122 N.E. 806;People v. Green, 292 Ill. 351, 127 N.E. 50;People v. Brocamp, 307 Ill. 448, 138 N.E. 728, and People v. Decker, 310 Ill. 234, 141 N.E. 710. All of these cases hold it is improper to cross-examine the defendant as to his conviction of a crime. It has been applied i......
-
People v. Brown
...cross-examine regarding any prior arrests. People v. Johnson (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 194, 198, 355 N.E.2d 577, 579; cf. People v. Decker (1924), 310 Ill. 234, 141 N.E. 710. In the present case, however, Brown's only affirmative representation regarding completeness of his testimony concerning......
-
People v. Hicks
...by the trial judge's sustaining objections to the improper cross-examination. People v. Bush, 300 Ill. 532, 133 N.E. 201; People v. Decker, 310 Ill. 234, 141 N.E. 710; People v. Harges, 87 Ill.App.2d 376, 231 N.E.2d 650; and People v. Ring, 89 Ill.App.2d 161, 232 N.E.2d 23. See too People v......
-
State v. McElroy
...by the court sustaining an objection. People v. Black, 317 Ill. 603, 614, 148 N.E. 281. As the Supreme Court stated in People v. Decker, 310 Ill. 234, 141 N.E. 710, "There is no question more damaging to a defendant with a jury than one that suggests or intimates that he is a cirminal [sic]......