People v. Grigsby, 22402.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation191 N.E. 264,357 Ill. 141
Docket NumberNo. 22402.,22402.
Decision Date19 June 1934

357 Ill. 141
191 N.E. 264


No. 22402.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 19, 1934.

Error to Circuit Court, Christian County; William B. Wright, Judge.

John W. Grigsby was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

[357 Ill. 142]

[191 N.E. 265]

J. D. Wilson, of Nokomis, for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., John W. Coale, State's Atty., of Taylorville, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield, for the People.

[357 Ill. 143]SHAW, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, John W. Grigsby, was indicted in the circuit court of Christian county on a charge of assault with intent to murder. He was tried and convicted, and prosecutes this writ of error to review that judgment.

At above 10 o'clock in the evening of September 8, 1933, James Walker and James Cameron were shot and wounded on or near a highway about nine miles south of Taylorville, which was the assault for which plaintiff in error was indicted. Walker testified that he left Taylorville about 10 o'clock p. m. in an automobile, and that about two miles out of Nokomis he picked up a man who was walking; that he was not then acquainted with this man, but learned afterwards that his name was James Cameron; that at the home of a Mr. Fine they stopped to go into his residence for a drink of water, at which time another car which had been following them came along and also stopped; that when he and Cameron got out and started across the road the occupant of the following car commenced shooting, wounding the witness in the wrist and chest, and then shot Cameron, after which the assailant got in his car and drove away. The witness identified the man who did the shooting as the plaintiff in error, Grigsby, and testified that he had known him for thirty-five years, living two miles from him and within a half mile of the scene of the shooting. He also testified that he and the defendant were friendly and had never had any trouble. After the shooting the witness went into the Fine residence, but found no one at home, then drove to Shafer's, then to Cameron's, then to Vanderville's store, from which place an ambulance was called and he was taken to the hospital.

James Cameron, the other man assaulted, testified that he received a flesh wound over the heart. In general he corroborated the testimony of Walker, except on the vital point of identification. As to that he stated that it was [357 Ill. 144]not the plaintiff in error who shot him, but that his assailant was a larger man. He testified that there was only one man there at the time of the assault, and that he was quite certain that man was not the plaintiff in error.

Mary Lockard was called for the people for the purpose of proving that the defendant had come to her home late the night of the shooting and told her that he ‘had just shot a couple of guys.’ After a few preliminary questions it became apparent that her testimony would not be satisfactory to the state's attorney, who thereupon started asking leading questions. After objections by the defendant to the procedure were made and sustained the jury was taken from the room, and the state's attorney then stated to the court that he was surprised at the attitude of the witness, and presented to the court a

[191 N.E. 266]

written but unsigned statement claimed to have been taken from Mrs. Lockard the next day after the offense. The court thereupon permitted the state's attorney to withdraw the witness, and orally instructed the jury that the witness was withdrawn and that her testimony up to that time should not be considered. After the testimony of another witness, which need not be noted here, the jury was again withdrawn from the room, and the court announced his intention of calling Mrs. Lockard back to the stand as the court's witness, to permit the state's attorney to examine her. Upon objection by counsel for the defendant, the court heard the testimony, out of the presence of the jury, of a stenographer for the state's attorney tending to show that a certain statement had been made by Mrs. Lockard as claimed by the prosecutor. The making of this statement was also corroborated, out of the presence of the jury, by the testimony of a deputy sheriff. The court then ruled that the witness, Mrs. Lockard, should be recalled as the court's witness. The jury was brought in, and the state's attorney proceeded to question her as to statements to him and his stenographer. He was permitted, over objection [357 Ill. 145]of counsel for the defense, to ask the witness a long series of questions as to whether or not she had, in response to questions read to her, made certain answers to the state's attorney on the early morning of September 9; the entire examination being in the usual impeachment form. The examination is too long to quote in full, but among other questions was the following: ‘And were you not further asked what else he said, and if you didn't reply that he said that he had shot a couple of guys?’...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • People v. Bailey, s. 46610
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 30 Enero 1975 is not evidence of defendant's guilt and cannot be received as proof of the fact at issue. (Citations.) As stated in People v. Grigsby, 357 Ill. 141, 149, 191 N.E. 264, 'If the witness admitted making the previous statement, it would prove nothing except that he, an admittedly unreliable......
  • State v. Ross
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 21 Agosto 1978
    ...... which is supported by the frequently cited decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois in People v. Grigsby, 357 Ill. 141, 191 N.E. 264 (1934); People v. Johnson, 333 Ill. 469, 165 N.E. 235 ......
  • People v. Rufus, 79-1927
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 16 Febrero 1982
    ...but merely refused to testify to matters beneficial to the state. In support of this contention, defendant cites People v. Grigsby (1934), 357 Ill. 141, 191 N.E. 264; People v. Bryant (1st Dist. 1981), 100 Ill.App.3d 17, 55 Ill.Dec. 152, 425 N.E.2d 1325; People v. Pastorino (1st Dist. 1980)......
  • People v. McKee
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 28 Marzo 1968
    ...244, 122 N.E.2d 568; People v. Daniels, 354 Ill. 600, 188 N.E. 886; People v. Cardinelli, 297 Ill. 116, 130 N.E. 355; People v. Grigsby, 357 Ill. 141, 191 N.E. 264.) In effect, it is an attempt to arrive at the truth based on sworn testimony. The purpose of impeachment is to destroy credibi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT