People v. McWilliams
| Decision Date | 23 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21552.,21552. |
| Citation | 350 Ill. 628,183 N.E. 582 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. McWILLIAMS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Winnebago County; Arthur E. Fisher, Judge.
Russell Robert McWilliams was convicted of murder, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Knight, Penny & Lupton, of Rockford (Clarence Darrow, William H. Holly, and Thomas F. Ryan, all of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., William D. Knight, State's Atty., of Rockford, J. J. Neiger, of Springfield, and Alfred B. Louison and Max A. Weston, both of Rockford, for the People.
Russell Robert McWilliams was indicted in the circuit court of Winnebago county for the murder of William Sayles. McWilliams pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to death. He prosecuted a writ of error, allowed by this court, and the judgment of the circuit court, so far as it imposed the death penalty, was reversed, and the cause was remanded to that court, with directions to proceed in conformity with the opinion filed. People v. McWilliams, 348 Ill. 333, 180 N. E. 832. After the reinstatement of the cause in the circuit court of Winnebago county, further proceedings, including the introduction of additional evidence, again resulted in the imposition of the sentence of death. In obedience to a second writ of error, allowed on the defendant's application a transcript of the record is submitted for review.
The opinion of this court on the former writ of error was filed, and judgment in accordance therewith was rendered on April 23, 1932. Six days later notice was served upon the defendant and his attorneys that, on May 10, 1932, the state's attorney of Winnebago county would ask the reinstatement of the cause in the circuit court. The motion was allowed, and the cause was reinstated. On May 14, 1932, the court fixed May 21, for the hearing of all motions in the case. The defendant, within a few days thereafter, presented a petition for a change of venue. In this petition he alleged that he feared he would not receive a fair trial; that the presiding judge, at the October, 1931, term of the circuit court, heard the testimony of witnesses and sentenced him to death; that the Supreme Court reversed and judgment; that the cause was redocketed; and that by reason of these facts, the presiding judge was prejudiced against him. The prayer of the petition was for a change of venue to some other judge of the circuit. The petition was verified by the affidavit of the defendant and was accompanied by the affidavits of himself and one of his attorneys stating that they believed the presiding judge was so prejudiced against the defendant that he could not have a fair and impartial trial before him. The state's attorney acknowledged the receipt, on May 20, 1932, of copies of the defendant's petition for a change of venue and of the affidavits accompanying the petition. The defendant also made a motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty, and the state's attorney likewise acknowledged the receipt, on the same day, of a copy of that motion. On May 21, 1932, the petition for a change of venue and the motion to withdraw the plea of guilty were denied. The presiding judge began the hearing of testimony on May 31, and on the next day rendered judgment fixing death as the punishment and June 24, 1932, as the day of execution. Exceptions to the court's adverse rulings and judgment were preserved.
The only contentions of the plaintiff in error which need to be considered are that the circuit court erred, first, in denying the petition for a change of venue; and, second, in refusing leave to withdraw the plea of guilty.
Section 18 of the Change of Venue Act, as amended (Cahill's Stat. 1931, p. 2747, par. 18; Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1931, p. 2910, c. 146, § 18), provides that, when any defendant in an indictment or information shall fear that he will not receive a fair and impartial trial in the court in which the case is pending, because the judge is, or the inhabitants of the county are, prejudiced against him or his attorney, the court shall award a change of venue upon the application of the defendant in the manner prescribed by subsequent sections of the act. Every such application, section 20 provides (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1931, c. 146, § 20), shall be by petition setting forth the cause of the application and praying a change of venue. A further requirement is that the petition shall be verified by the affidavit of the defendant. The twenty-first section provides that, when the cause for a change of venue is the prejudice of the judge against the defendant or his attorney, the petition shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the two persons last mentioned stating that they believe the judge is so prejudiced against the applicant or his attorney that the former cannot have a fair and impartial trial. The case, in that event, may be tried by another judge of the same circuit, but the venue shall not be changed from the county in which the indictment was found. By section 25 (Smith-Hurd Rev. St....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tate
...433 (1921) ; see Cantwell , 138 Ill. at 604, 28 N.E. 964, People v. Cohen , 268 Ill. 416, 109 N.E. 259 (1915), and People v. McWilliams , 350 Ill. 628, 183 N.E. 582 (1932). In later years, the court's language expanded to include that where a petition for change of venue on account of the p......
-
People v. Emerson
...art. VI, sec. 16) directing trial judges to grant motions for automatic substitution. The defendant also relies on People v. McWilliams (1932), 350 Ill. 628, 183 N.E. 582, which considered a similar factual situation under an earlier In McWilliams the defendant had pleaded guilty to a charg......
-
People v. Touhy
...courts. Levinson v. Home Bank & Trust Co., 337 Ill. 241, 169 N.E. 193;Downs v. Curry, 296 Ill. 277, 129 N. E. 761. In People v. McWilliams, 350 Ill. 628, 183 N. E. 582, we held that upon a proper showing the defendant was entitled to a change of venue after a reversal of his conviction, but......
-
State v. Neil
...rather than to defeat the right to a change of judge, and the right of a defendant to change of judge is absolute, People v. McWilliams (1932), 350 Ill. 628, 183 N.E. 582; People v. Smith (1963), 28 Ill.2d 445, 192 N.E.2d 880. These cases found reversible error in the trial court's failure ......