People v. Kurant

• Decision Date: 25 October 1928
• Docket Number: No. 18794.,18794.
• Citation: People v. Kurant, 331 Ill. 470, 163 N.E. 411 (Ill. 1928)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. KURANT.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

331 Ill. 470

163 N.E. 411

PEOPLE

v.KURANT.

No. 18794.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 25, 1928.

Error to Circuit Court, Madison County; Jesse R. Brown, Judge.

Mike Kurant was convicted of murder, and he brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

R. Guy Kneedler, of Collinsville, and Thomas Williamson, of Edwardsville (Warnock, Williamson & Burroughs, of Edwardsville, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Alvin C. Bohn, State's Atty., of Edwardsville, and Roy D. Johnson, of Springfield (I. H. Streeper, of Edwardsville, of counsel), for the People.

DEYOUNG, C. J.

Mike Kurant, Frank Kurant, and Otto Perfetti were jointly indicted in the circuit court of Madison county for the murder of Paul Budde on June 19, 1927.Frank Kurant and Perfetti were arrested on the next day.Mike Kurant was not apprehended until January 2, 1928.Frank Kurant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the penitentiary for 30 years.Perfetti had a jury trial.By the jury's verdict and the court's judgment his punishment was fixed at 14 years in the penitentiary.Mike Kurant pleaded guilty and was later sentenced to death.He prosecutes this writ of error.

The plaintiff in error was arraigned on January 13, 1928.The record shows that he was furnished with a copy of the indictment and a list of the witnesses but not of the jurors; that he pleaded guilty; that the court admonished him of the consequences of his plea but that he persisted in it; and that the court thereupon appointed R. Guy Kneedler to defend the plaintiff in error and fixed January 23, 1928, as the day for hearing the evidence.Kneedler was not present in court at the time of his appointment and received notice of it three days later.On the 22d day of January the trial judge amplified the record of the proceedings on January 13 to read as follows:

‘In order that the correct facts may be in the record as to what actually transpired, I might say the State's attorney read at length the indictment in the case, and the defendant, Mike Kurant, when asked by the court, said he wanted to plead guilty, and when asked about a jury trial he said he wanted to plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court.As I remember, that was his statement, and when told of the punishment under the plea, of death by hanging, life imprisonment or no less than fourteen years, he still wished to plead guilty.Also that the defendant was arraigned with twelve other persons on that day, the twelve all having been arraigned previous to the time the prisoner, Mike Kurant, was arraigned.Eight of the defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced to the Southern Illinois Penitentiary or to the Illinois State Reformatory, at Pontiac.Four of the defendants pleaded not guilty to felonies and counsel was appointed for them in each particular case.The defendant was asked if he had a lawyer, and he stated he did not; that he desired to enter a plea of guilty here.’

The plaintiff in error on the next day filed a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and to quash the indictment.The motion was supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff in error.Counter affidavits were filed by the prosecution.The motion was denied.On January 28, 1928, a motion was made by the plaintiff in error to withdraw his plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty.The grounds upon which this motion was based were that the plaintiff in error was a poor person without funds to employ an attorney and that he did not know that the court hand the power to appoint an attorney to defend him; that on January 13, 1928, he was arraigned without an opportunity to have counsel and without advice concerning his legal rights and the consequences of a plea of guilty, and that he entered such a plea in complete ignorance of his rights; that his plea was induced by the state's attorney and the sheriff, who informed him that they would prevail upon the court to impose a short sentence; that he believed their representations were true; that he was innocent of the charge laid in the indictment; and that he desired a trial by jury in order that he might offer his defense and that justice might be done.The plaintiff in error supported the motion by the affidavit upon which he had based his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and to quash the indictment.In this affidavit, in addition to the facts stated in the motion, he set forth that when he was arraigned he was in a nervous condition and did not know what plea was entered in his behalf; that he did not fully understand the court's advice and instructions; that his plea was obtained by the solicitation of the sheriff and the state's attorney; that on the evening of the day he was arrested he was taken from his cell to the office of the county jail, and the sheriff there advised him the best thing he could do would be to plead guilty; that the sheriff said he was the deponent's friend, and if such a plea were entered he would use his influence with the judge to have him sentenced for the shortest term possible; that the sheriff also said Frank Kurant and Perfetti had accused the deponent of the crime, and that any court or jury would believe them regardless of what he might say and that he would be convicted.The plaintiff in error further alleged in his affidavit: That Alvin C. Bohm was present and said that he was the former's friend; that he had influence with the court, and if the plaintiff in error would confess that he shot Budde, he(Bohm) would intercede in the deponent's behalf, and in that event was convinced he would receive a very short sentence.That the plaintiff in error told the sheriff and Bohm he was not guilty and would not confess or plead guilty.That after considerablediscussion Bohm went to a desk and said, ‘Mike, I know all about this whole affair, as I know what your brother Frank and Otto Perfetti said; I'll write this down on some paper and you sign it and I know you will come out all right.’That while Bohm was engaged in writing, the sheriff insisted that the plaintiff in error follow their advice, because, he said, the deponent had no defense and because he had a wife and four children and for their sake he should try to receive the shortest sentence possible.That if tried by a jury, he would certainly be convicted and sentenced for a long term or possibly be hanged or electrocuted, and that Bohm added that juries in Madison county were disposed to convict, and that shortly before a man who had a jury trial was found guilty and hanged.It is further alleged in the affidavit: That in reply to these representations the plaintiff in error maintained that he was not guilty and wished to consult an attorney, in order that he might be advised what to do.That Bohm asked him whether he had any money to employ an attorney, and upon receiving a negative answer said, ‘You are in a bad fix if you can't employ some lawyer to represent you and you had better take our advice.’That when Bohm finished writing he handed the paper to the plaintiff in error to read, but he could not read the writing.Bohm then asked him to sign his name, saying, ‘Mike, just sign your name there and you will be all right; we'll have you appear before the court as soon as possible and enter a plea of guilty and I'm sure you will get a very short sentence,and it will be the best thing you can do.’That the paper was not read to him but that on Bohm's advice he signed it, and that he did not know what it contained until later, when his attorney read it to him.That all the statements in the writing with reference to the shooting of Budde were false; that the only questions Bohm asked him were concerning some dates, his age, and where he had been since June 19, 1927.That the plaintiff in error was not advised concerning his constitutionalrights before he signed the confession.That when he was arraigned and entered a plea of guilty he was convinced that he would receive a short sentence in the penitentiary.That he did not remember the judge's advice or instructions, except a question put to the state's attorney, whether, at the time, a death sentence would be executed by hanging or electrocution.That this question so startled him that he begged for mercy, and the judge then appointed an attorney to represent him, and that after consulting with his lawyer he asked the court to be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty.

The prosecution replied to the motion asserting that the plaintiff in error understood his rights when he entered his plea of guilty in the instant case, because in 1921, upon an indictment for robbery, he was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was acquitted; that the plaintiff in error was a man of mature age, familiar with the English language, and fully understood the nature of the charge made against him prior to the time he entered his plea of guilty; that the court informed him of the consequences of his plea and by his answers he showed that he was aware of those consequences, and that, fully advised of his constitutional rights, he voluntarily confessed that he was guilty of the crime charged against him.The confession was set out in the reply.The counter affidavits upon which the prosecution relied in resisting the motion of the plaintiff in error to withdraw his plea of guilty and to quash the indictment were refiled in opposition to the present motion.These affidavits were made by Charles Hazzard, the jailer, Otto H. Hermann, the sheriff, and Alvin C. Bohm, the state's attorney, and concerned the meeting in the office of the county jail at which the plaintiff in error made and signed the confession.Each deponent stated that Bohm told the plaintiff in error that any statement he made might be used for or against him; that if he was unable to employ an attorney the court would appoint one to defend him and that he was entitled to a trial by jury; that the plaintiff in error replied that he did not want an attorney, because...