People v. Heide
| Decision Date | 19 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 14450.,14450. |
| Citation | 302 Ill. 624,135 N.E. 77 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HEIDE et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error, to Criminal Court, Cook County; Francis S. Wilson, Judge.
Norman Heide and others were convicted of robbery while armed, and they bring error.
Reversed and remanded.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Edward C. Fitch, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edward E. Wilson and Clyde C. Fisher, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiffs in error were convicted in the criminal court of Cook county under an indictment charging them with robbing the West Suburban Motor Company at La Grange, Ill., being then and there armed with revolvers. The evidence shows that three men drove into said garage on the night of November 25, 1920, about 11 o'clock, and ordered oil for the motor of the car they were driving. The night man, Stanley Data, procured the oil for them, and then one of the men drew a revolver and ordered Data to hold up his hands. He was taken by the men into a back room, put onto the floor and tied. Thereupon the three men took a Marmon automobile belonging to the motor company, $143.70 in cash from the cash register, and a Buick car owned by John F. Fris. Chester Auter was arrested on the morning of December 8 and taken to the police station, where he gave such information to the police officers as resulted in the arrest of the plaintiffs in error. Upon being brought into the police station the police obtained from plaintiffs in error information resulting in the recovery of the Marmon car.
R. W. Plummer and Elmer R. Plummer, owners of the West Suburban Motor Company, were at the police station on the evening of December 8 when plaintiffs in error were brought in and statements made by them. On the trial of the case, the state's attorney offered to prove by officer Christensen and the Plummers, that confessions of the crime were made by plaintiffs in error. Counsel for plaintiffs in error objected on the ground that the statements were procured through promises of immunity, and asked that the court inquire into the matter out of the presence of the jury. The jury were excused, and the testimony of numerous witnesses, including that of plaintiffs in error, was heard by the trial judge, who decided that, as plaintiffs in error denied having made confessions, they could not be held to have been influenced by any statements made to them by the police officers, and admitted the confessions in evidence. It is most earnestly urged that the court erred in admitting evidence of these confessions.
R. W. Plummer, one of the owners of the garage where the robbery took place, testified on the examination before the court that he was present in the police station when the officers questioned plaintiffs in error; that they at first denied having had anything to do with the crime; that Heide was told by the officers that the best thing would be for him to tell the truth; that if he did he would be taken to the state's attorney's office and the state's attorney would do the best for him. Elmer R. Plummer, part owner of the garage, testified that he was present when the conversation occurred between plaintiffs in error and the officers; that before either made a statement the police officer said that the man that told the truth to him would he given a chance to go before the state's attorney and make a statement; that no promise of immunity was made to either of the plaintiffs in error in the presence of the witness; that the officer said that it was not in his power to help them at that time; that one of the officers told plaintiffs in error, ‘You better tell the truth.’ E. M. Christensen, a police officer, testified that he was present at the time the statement was made, but did not offer immunity but offered to take them to the state's attorney's office; that they might make a statement there; that he did not say anything to plaintiffs in error as to whether or not he had power to show them mercy or give them help; that he advised them to tell the truth; that he told them it was always best to tell the truth when in trouble; that he said, ‘We think a lot more of you if you tell the truth than we do if you lie’; that he did not promise immunity or promise to intercede for them in any way. Christensen, recalled during the process of this examination, testified that he said to Heide that the state's attorney might show him leniency; that if there was any leniency to be shown it would be shown at the state's attorney's office, and if they told the truth he would take them to the state's attorney's office. The witness Elmer Plummer, when later recalled, testified that ‘they were told that if they would tell the truth they would be given leniency; that is not the exact words but something to that effect.’ Plaintiffs in error both denied that they made any statements whatever, but Heide testified that he was told by officer Christensen that, if he admitted his guilt, he would do what he could for him.
The rule is that a confession obtained under any promise or hope of immunity is not admissible in evidence. Such a confession is not voluntary, where any degree of influence is used to obtain it by a person having authority over the crime charged or over the person of the prisoner. In Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 570, 18 Sup. Ct. 197, 42 L. Ed. 568, a policeman made the following statement to a prisoner accused of murder:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Phillips
...Rather, we find this case to be similar to two other cases in which confessions were held to be involuntary.¶ 49 In People v. Heide , 302 Ill. 624, 628, 135 N.E. 77 (1922), our supreme court held that a confession was involuntary when the police told the suspects that "it would be better fo......
-
Frazier v. State
...is not an inducement rendering a confession involuntary.' 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, § 367 (12th ed. 1955). See also People v. Heide, 1922, 302 Ill. 624, 135 N.E. 77. 'On principle, the advice by any person whatever that it would be better to tell the truth cannot possibly vitiate the c......
-
People v. Bell
... ... Illinois courts have long recognized that offers of leniency are a factor to be considered in determining the voluntariness of a confession. (People v. Price, 24 Ill.2d 46, 179 N.E.2d 685 (1962); People v. Heide, 302 Ill. 624, 135 N.E. 77 (1922); People v. Gunn, 15 Ill.App.3d 1050, 305 N.E.2d 598 (1st Dist. 1973).) As this court said recently in People v. Koesterer, ... [7 Ill.Dec. 923] 44 Ill.App.3d 468, 469, 470, 3 Ill.Dec. 128, 358 N.E.2d 295, 297 (5th Dist. 1976), leave to appeal denied : ... "* * * ... ...
-
People v. Howard, 2-84-0393
...93 S.Ct. 2731, 37 L.Ed.2d 144.) Confessions induced by promises or suggestions of leniency have been held involuntary. (People v. Heide (1922), 302 Ill. 624, 135 N.E. 77; People v. Ruegger (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 765, 336 N.E.2d 50; People v. Peck (1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 112, 309 N.E.2d 346.) H......