People v. Long

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DAILY
• Citation: People v. Long, 407 Ill. 210, 95 N.E.2d 461 (Ill. 1950)
• Decision Date: 27 November 1950
• Docket Number: No. 31585,31585
• Parties: PEOPLE v. LONG.

Page 461

95 N.E.2d 461

407 Ill. 210

PEOPLE v. LONG.

No. 31585.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 27, 1950.

Carl H. Preihs, Pana (John W. Preihs, Pana, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., and Scott Hoover, State's Atty., Taylorville (Harry L. Pate, Tuscola, of counsel), for the People.

DAILY, Justice.

Defendant, Robert Long, was convicted of the crime of manslaughter by a jury in the circuit court of Christian County, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not less than three nor more than four years. He prosecutes this writ of error for review, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of conviction, that venue was not proved, and that the court erred in refusing certain tendered jury instructions.

The record shows that James A. Fleming, sixty-eight years old, died on a city street in Taylorville on the night of June 16, 1948, as the result of injuries caused by a blow or blows on his head. The evidence of the prosecution tended to prove that the defendant had made an unprovoked attack with his fists on the deceased, and that such blows, or injuries suffered in a fall resulting from such blows, caused the death. The defense witnesses sought to establish that defendant did not strike the deceased, and that the latter's fatal injuries were suffered in a fall to the sidewalk, brought about by his own misconduct, or else were incurred when Fleming was dropped by bystanders who sought to life him from the street. Our consideration of the entire record, and of the errors assigned, indicates that there is little need to review the evidence in great detail in this opinion. As presented, there is a hopeless conflict in the version testified to by the witnesses for each side. The issue resolves itself largely into a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be afforded their testimony, which functions we have held many times are best performed by the jury or court who heard and saw the witnesses. People v. Potts, 403 Ill. 398, 86 N.E.2d 345; People v. DeMarios, 401 Ill. 146, 81 N.E.2d 464; People v. Simmons, 399 Ill. 572, 78 N.E.2d 269. It is likewise the province of the jury to determine which set of witnesses, whose testimony conflicts, is telling the truth. People v. Harrison, 318 Ill. 316, 149 N.E. 236; People v. Ruben, 366 Ill. 29, 7 N.E.2d 744. On review, this court will not disturb the finding of the jury unless it can be said that there is not sufficient credible evidence to establish the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt, or unless the evidence is deemed so improbable or unsatisfactory as not to be worthy of belief. People v. Sheppard, 402 Ill. 347, 83 N.E.2d 587; People v. Willson, 401 Ill. 68, 81 N.E.2d 485. In the instant case the jury apparently considered the testimony of the People's witnesses as true. Accepting that finding, it must be said that the evidence is sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and is not of such an improbable or unsatisfactory nature as would warrant a reversal of the judgment. With further regard to the evidence, we are constrained to remark that neither the prosecution nor the defense, either by scope or manner of presentation, appear to have exhausted their opportunities of fully presenting the testimony of those who allegedly witnessed the affair between defendant and the deceased. The probability that the proof may not be confined to such narrow limits on another trial is further reason why a complete review of the evidence would be of no benefit in this opinion. It is our judgment that the errors going to the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be sustained on the record before us.

It is true, as defendant argues under his second assignment of error, that there was no direct testimony that the crime of which he was accused was committed in Christian County. The rule is, however, that it is not necessary that testimony be given in so many words that the crime was committed in a given county, but that venue may be proved by circumstantial evidence. People v. Hornaday, 400 Ill. 361, 81 N.E.2d 168; People v. Cathony, 376 Ill. 260, 33 N.E.2d 473; People v. Gregor, 359 Ill. 402, 194 N.E. 550. It was here established that the alleged crime was committed in the city of Taylorville and that law-enforcement officials of Christion County participated in defendant's arrest. Such facts, along with other circumstances, lead only to the rational conclusion that the crime was, without reasonable doubt, committed in the county where the trial was held. Weinberg v. People, 208 Ill. 15, 69 N.E. 936; People v. Ortiz, 320 Ill. 205, 150 N.E. 708. In determining proof of venue, we may also take judicial notice that a city is located in a certain county. People v. Suppiger, 103 Ill. 434; Sullivan v. People, 122 Ill. 385, 13 N.E. 248. In this case we take notice that the city of Taylorville is located in Christian County. The entire record leaves no doubt but that venue was sufficiently established.

Error is next assigned on the...