People v. Dorr
| Decision Date | 08 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 20913.,20913. |
| Citation | 178 N.E. 476,346 Ill. 295 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. DORR. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Harry B. Miller, Judge.
Samuel Howard Dorr was convicted of murder, and he brings error.
Affirmed.Barratt O'Hara, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Samuel Howard Dorr and Genevieve O'Brien were indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for the murder of William J. O'Brien. They were tried separately. A jury found Dorr guilty, and fixed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. Judgment was rendered on the verdict, and Dorr prosecutes this writ of error for a review of the record.
The plaintiff in error, Dorr, in the year 1929, conducted an insurance agency at 7455 Cottage Grove avenue, Chicago, and resided with his wife and two children in the first or lower apartment of his two-story building at 7328 Maplewood avenue, about four miles distant from his office. In 1923, Dorr became acquainted with William J. O'Brien while both were in the service of the Chicago Surface Lines as street car conductors. Later, O'Brien, in addition to his employment by the street railway company, worked a part of each day in the office of the recorder of deeds of Cook county. About May, 1928, O'Brien and Genevieve, his wife moved into the upper apartment of Dorr's building on Maplewood avenue and occupied it thereafter as his tenants. The building faced east and from front to rear the stairway, hall, dining room, and kitchen comprised approximately the north half, and the living-room, Mrs. O'Brien's room, the bathroom and O'Brien's room, the south half of the upper apartment. A hall connected the two bedrooms, and, from this hall on the north, entrance was gained to the bathroom.
Early in the year 1929, Dorr and Mrs. O'Brien manifested an unusual interest in each other. Thereafter they often dined and took automobile rides together, and in August they began to have illicit relations. O'Brien's employment by the street railway company occupied his time in the evening and until the early hours of the morning. On November 20, 1929, he returned home from work about 3 a. m. He went directly to his room and retired. His wife and the plaintiff in error at the time occupied a bed in her room. About 7:30 o'clock that morning, O'Brien arose, entered the bathroom and closed the door. In a few minutes his wife asked and gained admission, and a conversation concerning money followed. After Mrs. O'Brien returned to her room, the plaintiff in error asked her where she kept a revolver which he had given her, and which he knew was loaded. The plaintiff in error made a search for the revolver and found it on a shelf in a closet adjoining O'Brien's room. He remained in the closet until O'Brien returned to his room, and, when the latter opened the closet door and reached for his trousers, the plaintiff in error shot him. The men grappled, and in the hall between the two bedrooms a second shot was fired. O'Brien called his wife and asked why she had the plaintiff in error shoot him. She answered that an electric light bulb must have exploded. The two men continued their struggle toward the front of the apartment, and O'Brien had blood on his face. The revolver was discharged a third and a fourth time while the men were in the front hall, and both fell down the stairway to a landing between the two floors. The plaintiff in error assisted O'Brien back upstairs. Mrs. Dorr appeared and inquired whether her husband had remanined in O'Brien's apartment during the night, and he answered that he had to see that nothing happened.Mrs. O'Brien professed ignorance of the whereabouts of the plaintiff in error, but added that she had done the shooting, and she rubbed the revolver with her hands to remove his finger prints and to substitute her own. Police officers had been called in the meantime and arrived shortly. The plaintiff in error admitted them, and they proceeded to the second floor. They found O'Brien sitting in a chair in the living room and they saw blood on the floor and walls of the apartment. One of the officers asked O'Brien who shot him, and he answered the plaintiff in error. The latter was then arrested and taken to the Chicago Lawn police station. O'Brien was removed to the Holy Cross Hospital, where, after an examination, his wounds were pronounced fatal. Later in the day, in the presence of several persons and under the fixed belief that death was impending, he stated that the plaintiff in error shot him. The statement was committed to writing by a police officer, and was signed by O'Brien.
About 1 a. m., November 21, 1929, at the detective bureau, in the presence of two police officers, an assistant state's attorney, and a court reporter, Genevieve O'Brien stated that the plaintiff in error shot her husband in the latter's apartment on the morning of the preceding day, and that three or four shots were fired. The court reporter later read Mrs. O'Brien's statement to the plaintiff in error, and he acknowledged before several witnesses that it was true. During the afternoon of the same day, in the presence of four police officers, the same assistant state's attorney, and another court reporter, the plaintiff in error confessed that he shot O'Brien twice at the time and place in question. The confession was reduced to writing and signed by the plaintiff in error in the presence of three witnesses. O'Brien died on November 21, 1929, at about 6:30 p. m.
From the testimony of the plaintiff in error, it appears that O'Brien's domestic relations were unhappy; that his wife was frail and nervous; his treatment of her was brutal, and she once attempted to commit suicide; that these considerations and the fact that they were tenants led the plaintiff in error and his wife to visit Mrs. O'Brien often to assist her in various ways; that on the evening of November 19, 1929, they called upon her and remained until after she retired at about 1 a. m.; that two hours later O'Brien returned home and shortly thereafter loud talking was heard and Mrs. O'Brien began to scream; that the plaintiff in error and his wife went upstairs, where they found O'Brien holding Mrs. O'Brien by the hair, and, after restoring quiet, returned to their apartment; that in the morning the plaintiff in error was awakened by his wife because she heard a commotion upstairs during which a shot was fired; that again they went to the second floor and found O'Brien with a revolver in his hand holding Mrs. O'Brien who was screaming; that the plaintiff in error asked O'Brien what his purpose was, he answered that he had none, and he supplemented his answer by inquiring why the plaintiff in error did not remain downstairs; that after further discussion which became increasingly animated, the latter jumped between O'Brien and his wife, grasped the husband by the hands, and O'Brien's revolver was discharged; that the plaintiff in error succeeded in obtaining possession of the revolver and endeavored to leave the apartment; that as he ran he fell over a chair and the revolver was again discharged; that O'Brien followed him and recovered the revolver before he could regain his feet; that a struggle ensued, the plaintiff in error was pushed against the wall, another shot was fired, and both men fell down the stairway to the landing, O'Brien holding the revolver; that when the plaintiff in error discovered that O'Brien was shot, he called a doctor; that soon a police squad arrived in front of the building; that he admitted the police officers and accompanied them upstairs where O'Brien was seated in the living room with the revolver in his hand; that one of the officers said that O'Brien accused him of the shooting, and that he was then arrested and taken to the police station. The plaintiff in error denied that he ever had illicit relations with Mrs. O'Brien.
At the opening of the trial, the plaintiff in error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Albanese
... ... Williams (1968), 40 Ill.2d 522, 526, 240 N.E.2d 645, cert. denied (1969), 393 U.S. 1123, 89 S.Ct. 1004, 22 L.Ed.2d 129 ... Defendant also contends that the State was erroneously permitted to introduce evidence of his financial problems and relies chiefly on People v. Dorr (1931), 346 Ill. 295, 178 N.E. 476, to support this proposition. In Dorr, the court stated that evidence of pecuniary embarrassment should have been excluded because: "A person's lack of money or even insolvency, without other incriminating facts or circumstances, does not justify the suspicion ... ...
-
People v. Parra
... ... The reason for the exchange, according to her, was that defendant was financially unable to meet the installment payments and had other outstanding debts as well ... In People v. Dorr (1935), 346 Ill. 295, 178 N.E. 476, the court stated that a defendant's mere lack of money, without other incriminating circumstances, will not support the inference that he will commit a crime of violence in order to improve his financial condition; hence, absent other incriminating circumstances, ... ...
- People v. Weber, 30676.
-
People v. Gougas
... ... In both cases the [410 Ill. 240] defendant's knowledge of the existence of the insurance by which he would gain was the governing factor in determining the competency of the policies as evidence ... It is true, of course, that there are innumerable cases, such as People v. Dorr, 346 Ill. 295, 178 N.E. 476; State v. Leuch, 198 Wash. 331, 88 P.2d 440, and Johnson v. State, 186 Ga. 324, 197 S.E. 786, wherein insurance policies beneficial to an accused or a co-conspirator have been admitted in evidence to establish motive for homicide. However, in all such cases that we have ... ...