People v. Lefler
| Citation | 38 Ill.2d 216,230 N.E.2d 827 |
| Decision Date | 29 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 39825,39825 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Theodore Wayne LEFLER, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Samuel J. Naylor, Carthage, and George J. Lewis, Quincy, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and C. Don Weston, State's Atty., Macomb (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William L. Randolph, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for appellee.
The defendant, Theodore Wayne Lefler, was indicted by the grand jury of McDonough County for the murder of his infant daughter. A change of venue was granted and the cause was tried by jury in Knox County, resulting in a verdict finding the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. We was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 9 nor more than 10 years and an appeal has been perfected to this court, since a substantial constitutional issue is involved.
Although we do not find it necessary to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt, some summary of the evidence is necessary. The defendant's wife testified that she left home at about 3:30 P.M. on January 16, 1965, and that the defendant stayed home to care for their daughter, who was about 7 weeks old. When Mrs. Lefler returned about two hours later she noticed that something was wrong with the baby and she and the defendant took the child to the hospital. The baby was examined by a nurse and a physician and was pronounced dead.
X-ray photographs were taken and were admitted in evidence. These photographs showed a fracture of the skull but no other fractures. An autopsy was also performed and the doctor testified that it revealed numerous hemorrhages along the vertebral colunm near the junction of the ribs, and also showed delicate lateral fractures of several ribs. The autopsy also showed a skull fracture and extensive brain damage. The doctor testified that the rib injuries could have been caused by a crushing type of injury and that the skull fracture and brain damage could have been caused by a blunt force.
The evidence showed that the defendant was questioned at length at the funeral home on the day following the death of the child and was taken to Springfield the next day for the purpose of taking a lie-detector test. The test was not given but the defendant was questioned by the polygraph operator. Over the objections of the defendant a transcript of his oral statement at the funeral home was admitted in evidence and the polygraph operator also testified as to his conversations with the defendant. In addition, a signed statement which the defendant executed in Springfield was admitted in evidence over defendant's objection.
Prior to trial the defendant moved for a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether these three statements were voluntary. The court granted his request as to the written statement and a hearing was held, resulting in a finding that the statement was voluntary. However, the court denied the defendant's request for a preliminary hearing to determine the voluntary nature of the two oral statements, apparently on the ground that the statements were largely exculpatory and at the most constituted admissions rather than confessions. The defendant's first contention on this appeal is that the court erred in denying his request for a preliminary hearing as to these statements.
In the first statement the defendant was questioned by the sheriff, the coroner and an assistant State's Attorney. He was repeatedly exhorted to tell the truth and was told that the authorities could not 'buy' his explanation that the defendant did not know how the injuries occurred. The authorities insistently suggested to the defendant that he might have squeezed the baby to stop her from crying and that he might have banged her head on the chair for the same reason. The defendant, after consistently denying that he intentionally squeezed the child, eventually said, 'Well, I squeezed her and I reckon that could have broken her ribs some way.' When he was asked why he squeezed the baby he replied, 'Oh, I might have wanted her to stop crying.' At a later point in the questioning the sheriff told him that if he had done something on the spur of the moment he should tell them about it so they could help him and suggested that perhaps he needed psychiatric treatment. The defendant again admitted squeezing the baby to keep her from crying and also admitted that the baby had hit her head against the arm of the chair. The polygraph operator testified, over objection, as to his conversations with the defendant and said that the defendant told him that he picked up the baby and shook it to try to stop it from crying and that he squeezed the child.
While the statements of the defendant were not in the strict sense of the word confessions to the crime of murder, it is apparent that they were not entirely exculpatory and that his admissions that he squeezed the child to keep her from crying were incriminating. The authorities in this State appear to be conflicting on the question of whether a preliminary hearing is required to determine the voluntary nature of an admission, as distinguished from a confession. For example, in People v. Speice, 23 Ill.2d 40, 46, 177 N.E.2d 233, and People v. Stanton, 16 Ill.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v. State
...526, 368 N.E.2d 1334 (1977); People v. Garlick, 46 Ill.App.3d 216, 4 Ill.Dec. 746, 360 N.E.2d 1121 (1977) and People v. Leflar, 38 Ill.App.2d 216, 230 N.E.2d 827 (1967). In State v. Bucanis, 26 N.J. 45, 138 A.2d 739 (1958) cert. denied, 357 U.S. 910, 78 S.Ct. 1157, 2 L.Ed.2d 1160 (1958), wh......
-
State v. Adams, 39402
... ... Criminal Law § 852(1), p. 353 (1961). See People v. Cheary, 48 Cal.2d 301, 309 P.2d 431 (1957); State v. Bucanis, 26 N.J. 45, 138 A.2d 739, 73 A.L.R.2d 760 (1958); State v. Morris, 245 La. 175, 157 ... See State v. Bischert, 131 Mont. 152, 308 P.2d 969 (1957); People v. Lefler, 38 Ill.2d 216, 230 N.E.2d 827 (1967) ... It is true that the autopsy surgeon in this case said that the slides would be 'most ... ...
-
People v. Green
... ... The court [209 Ill.App.3d 242] concluded that the gruesome nature of the photographs was caused by the autopsy procedure, rather than by an act of the defendant ... Similarly, in People v. Lefler (1967), 38 Ill.2d 216, 221-22, 230 N.E.2d 827, one photograph showed the decedent's chest cavity after the breast bone, a portion of the ribs and the lungs, heart and main blood vessels had been removed. Another photograph showed the skull and portions of the brain after an area of the skull had ... ...
-
People v. Boyd
... ... We agree with the State. While the pictures are gruesome, they accurately depict the victims of a grisly crime. None of the photographs was taken after the injuries had been distorted by an autopsy procedure as in People v. Lefler (1967), 38 Ill.2d 216, 230 N.E.2d 827; People v. Jackson (1956), 9 Ill.2d 484, 138 N.E.2d 528; or People v. Landry (1977), 54 Ill.App.3d 159, 11 Ill.Dec. 588, 368 N.E.2d 1334. Defendant's reliance on the foregoing cases is misplaced. Likewise, the fact that there had been prior extensive oral ... ...