People v. Donahue

• Decision Date: 27 June 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-833,76-833
• Citation: 365 N.E.2d 710,8 Ill.Dec. 472,50 Ill.App.3d 392
• Parties: , 8 Ill.Dec. 472 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James S. DONAHUE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 710

365 N.E.2d 710

50 Ill.App.3d 392, 8 Ill.Dec. 472

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James S. DONAHUE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-833.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

June 27, 1977.

Robert L. Edwards and Patricia Unsinn, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Bernard Carey, State's Atty. of Cook County, Laurence J. Bolon, Iris E. Sholder and Wendy Paul Billington, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.

McGLOON, Justice.

Defendant, James Donahue, was found guilty after a bench trial of the offense of murder. The circuit court of Cook County sentenced him to 15-25 years imprisonment. The primary issue on appeal concerns whether the defendant's fingerprint found in the victim's apartment, standing alone, is sufficient to support the conviction.

We reverse.

The record discloses the following pertinent facts, as briefly summarized. On June 9, 1975, the victim's body was found in her apartment. Her head was covered with plastic bags which were tied around her neck with two cords. One of these cords was the electric cord attached to a steam iron. The victim's apartment was in complete disorder, some items were discovered missing, but there were no signs of forcible entry. Four empty beer cans and a broken bottle of Chivas Regal were found, and the victim had alcohol in her blood. Fingerprints and portions of fingerprints were found on the steam iron, the beer cans, a television set, and various flat surfaces throughout the apartment. The plastic bags used to suffocate the victim were not dusted for fingerprints, although they would have received fingerprint impressions. The only evidence linking the defendant to the crime was the testimony that one of his fingerprints matched one of the fingerprints found on the iron. The police evidence technicians did not, however, know where on the iron they found defendant's fingerprint. The defendant's evidence in his behalf was the testimony of the victim's sister, who said that she visited with the victim about a week prior to the murder, and that the victim had been entertaining a man named James who said he was a cook, who looked similar to defendant, and had missing upper teeth. In fact, defendant was named James, was employed as a cook at the time of his arrest, and had missing upper teeth. The witness also stated that at the time, the victim was mending some clothing which was to be given away. The sewing machine was being used.

Defendant's principal argument on appeal is that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no proof that his fingerprint could have been impressed on the iron only at the time the crime was committed. The prosecution's theory is that in light of the unexplained presence of the defendant's fingerprint on the instrumentality of the murder, the defendant was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two basic rules of criminal jurisprudence are involved in this case. The first rule is that where the only evidence supporting a conviction is circumstantial evidence, the proof of circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency leading, on the whole, to a satisfactory conclusion and...