People v. Eatman

• Decision Date: 22 March 1950
• Docket Number: No. 31388,31388
• Citation: People v. Eatman, 405 Ill. 491, 91 N.E.2d 387 (Ill. 1950)
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. EATMAN.

Page 387

91 N.E.2d 387

405 Ill. 491

PEOPLE v. EATMAN.

No. 31388.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 22, 1950.

Aaron H. Payne, Chicago (James Y. Carter and Julian B. Wilkins, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General, and John S. Boyle, State's Attorney, Chicago (John T. Gallagher and Rudolph L. Janega, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

GUNN, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, John W. Eatman, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook County for manslaughter. The was tried before the court without a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to ten yeras imprisonment in the penitentiary. He prosecutes a writ of error.

Defendant, with his wife, occupied the south front apartment on the second floor of an apartment building at No. 1244 South Troy Street, in Chicago. Adjoining this apartment was another, designated as the north front apartment. A public hallway ran north and south along these two apartments. A short vestibule hall opened from the main hall, about seven feet in length, between these two apartments, and at the end of this vestibule was a bathroom for the common use of both of the apartments. The entrance to each apartment was a door from this vestibule, and the vestibule itself was closed off from the main hall bt a door, which rendered it accessible only to the residents of the apartments, or to persons delivering goods to them, since the only entrance to the apartments was through the doors from the vestibule.

The apartment was rented by the week, and on April 29, 1949, the defendant paid his rent in advance to May 6, and at that time told his landlady, a Mrs. Miller, he had been out of work for a week and would pay her for two weeks the following Friday. Sometime on May 7, Mrs. Miller turned off the electric current, so the defendant had no light or other electric service. About seven o'clock of the evening of May 9, Mrs. Miller, accompanied by the deceased, Guy Luke, whom she described as a friend who lived with her, opened the door to the vestibule with a key, and knocked at the inner door of the Eatman apartment. Mrs. Miller had a flashlight in her hand, and when the door was opened she demanded her rent, and a verbal controversy ensued, regarding which the testimony is conflicting.

Mrs. Miller testified that she and Guy Luke went to the apartment of the defendant and opened the vestibule door with a key, and knocked at the door of the defendant; that some one inside said 'Who is there,' and she said 'It is Mrs. Miller, Mr. Eatman,' and defendant opened the door and Mrs. Miller said 'What about the rent,' and Mrs. Eatman replied and said 'I told you he would have your rent on Friday, he would pay you a couple on Friday,' and Mrs. Miller said 'No'; and further testified 'I told Mr. Eatman that I would have to have the rent, so I said to him, I have to have the rent, and Mr. Eatman interrupted me, and said when you come here do you have to have a bodyguard, and he was coming by me to where Mr. Luke stood'; and Mrs. Miller said 'Who are you to tell me who I am to take with me.' Further discussion occurred about the payment of the rent which had been paid up to May 6. Mrs. Miller then claims that Eatman slammed the door shut, and broke the skin on her hand, and that then Mr. Eatman opened the door again and rushed out and stabbed Luke.

The testimony of both Mr. and Mrs. Eatman is substantially the same up to the point as to what occurred after the door was shut. Mrs. Eatman says that when her husband asked Mrs. Miller if it was necessary to have a bodyguard to collect rent, and asked her why she did not come in and talk like a lady, Mrs. Miller said 'It is none of your business who I bring up here with me. Unless you pay the money I will take your apartment, that is none of your business,' and that after that Mr. Eatman attempted to close the door, and Mrs. Miller set her foot in the door so it could not be closed, and she said: 'All right, you will pay for this, you smashed my finger, you are going to go to jail for this,' and Mrs. Miller said 'Come, Luke, come here, let's get him,' and that Mrs. Miller and Luke lunged against the kitchen door, and when they broke in Mrs. Miller beat her husband over the head with the flashlight, and Luke said 'I will kill the ___,' and that he had her husband by the collar and was striking him when the latter reached up to the top of the refrigerator, which was near the kitchen door, and took down a knife and stabbed Luke, from which Luke staggered back and fell to the floor.

The testimony of Mr. Eatman is substantially the same. And, in addition thereto, seven witnesses testified that the defendant had a good reputation as a peaceable and law-abiding citizen, and for over twenty years of his life had been a minister of the Gospel.

From the foregoing it appears that the only substantial dispute in fact is in what part of the defendant's apartment the homicide occurred, Mrs. Miller claiming the defendant advanced from his kitchen door to the vestibule door, and assaulten door to out provocation. Eatman and wife both claim the Mrs. Miller and Luke were trying to get into the kitchen, and had actually broken into the same and were assaulting Eatman, and that the killing took place while repelling them. Circumstances strongly support the latter theory. In the first place, the body of Luke was found lying in the doorway of the kitchen, the head and trunk being inside, and the balance of the body in the vestibule; (2) the flashlight belonging to Mrs. Miller, with the electric cells loose, was found lying in the kitchen, as also was the knife which was used in the killing; (3) all agree that Mrs. Miller tried to enter the apartment after Eatman told her he could not pay her, and even Mrs. Miller agrees that she threatened to send him to jail for trying to close the door, and pinching her hand; (4) the presence of Luke is unexplained except on the theory that Mrs. Miller expected action, in which she would need assistance; and (5) Mrs. Miller had previously cut off the electric current, which indicated her feelings were not hospitable, to say the least.

These admitted facts make the claim of Mrs. Miller that the defendant rushed through the kitchen door and to the vestibule door, and stabbed the deceased, very doubtful. She claims the defendant closed the door in her face, and then again opened it and charged past her to reach Luke. The query naturally arises, why would a man trying to eject one from his premises, and ending a dispute with an angry woman, then reopen the door and rush out again after he had succeeded in closing the door?

There is another circumstance impeaching Mrs. Miller and supporting the defendant, and that is that both he and Mrs. Eatman claim she struck him on the head with the flashlight. The fact that the flashlight, with the loose cells, was found lying on the floor in the kitchen afterwards by the police indicates strongly that something of a violent nature had occurred to detach the cells from the flashlight. But, regardless of the exact place in the apartment where the homicide occurred, it clearly appears that both Mrs. Miller and Luke were trespassers...