People v. Maloney, 24831.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 24831.,24831. |
| Citation | 370 Ill. 351,18 N.E.2d 885 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MALONEY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Jerome R. Dunne, Judge.
John Maloney was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error.
Affirmed.Harold L. Levy and Edward M. Keating, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and A. B. Dennis, of Danville (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Blair L. Varnes, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error seeks review of a judgment of conviction against him in the criminal court of Cook county on an indictment charging him with manslaughter. The charge is that on August 18, 1937, the defendant wantonly, recklessly and negligently so operated his automobile as to strike and kill a four-year-old boy named Freddie Fincher.
The substance of the testimony of the People's witnesses tends to establish that on the evening of August 18, 1937, at about 8:30, ‘daylight saving’ time, the defendant, while driving east on Fifth avenue, in the city of Chicago, drove without stopping and at a speed from forty-five to fifty miles per hour, through a stop light at the intersection of Kedzie avenue and Fifth avenue; that the lights of the defendant's car were not burning; that after he crossed Kedzie avenue his car struck a Buick car moving west on Fifth avenue which had slowed down for the stop light, and, veering off that car, ran up over the curb of the street and into a group of people sitting in front of a building, killing the child. The People's evidence also is that when defendant got out of the car he walked unsteadily and appeared to be intoxicated, some of the witnesses testifying that they detected the odor of liquor on his breath and stated that they were of the opinion that he was under the influence of liquor. The People's witnesses also testified that the street was well lighted, the night was clear and the pavement was dry. When defendant's car, after crossing Kedzie avenue, crashed obliquely into the Buick, there was a loud crashing sound or report as the two cars came together. The fenders and running board of the Buick were crushed. The evidence shows that the Buick was in the north traffic lane of Fifth avenue at the time.
The owner of the Buick car testified that as he was driving west on Fifth avenue near Kedzie, and while slowing down because of the stop light, he suddenly saw a car coming toward him and heard and felt a crash against his own car; that his car stopped and that when he got out he saw the running board and fenders were mashed. The witnesses agree that a sound like an explosion occurred when the defendant's car struck the Buick car. There is no testimony that more than one explosion was heard.
Defendant offered testimony of previous good character, and evidence tending to contradict that of the People as to his intoxication at the time. He testified that he had not been drinking; that he had but a couple of glasses of beer that evening and that when he got to the corner of Kedzie and Fifth avenues he saw a stop light and stopped, shifted his gears to second, and proceeded east on Fifth avenue; that by the time he got down a block or so he was going twenty-five to thirty miles per hour; that as he was going east on Fifth avenue he saw cars coming west on that avenue; that there was one pulling up to the stop light and one further back, and that when he came within three feet of the dark sedan his front tire blew out, and that when this happened his car swerved over against the sedan and collided with it striking the fenders and running board; that the next thing he knew he heard a scream; that he had lost control of the car when the tire blew out and crashed over the curb into the walk; that when he learned that a boy had been struck he asked the people to take the boy to the hospital and was told that the child had gone; that he didn't try to get away but got out of the car and remained there waiting for the police. He testified that his car was in good condition; that he had purchased it that year, in February, and that the tires were the usual tires sold with a car of that make.
It is argued that the evidence does not show defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; that to make one guilty of criminal homicide arising from negligent operation of an automobile, it must be shown that the negligent operation was the direct and proximate cause of the death, and that, here, the evidence does not show defendant's negligence to have been the proximate cause of the death, but that the death was the result of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial