People v. Ortiz

• Decision Date: 18 February 1926
• Docket Number: No. 16899.,16899.
• Citation: 150 N.E. 708,320 Ill. 205
• Parties: PEOPLE v. ORTIZ.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

320 Ill. 205

150 N.E. 708

PEOPLE

v.ORTIZ.

No. 16899.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 18, 1926.

Error to Circuit Court, Peoria County; T. N. Green, Judge.

Jose Ortiz, alias Joseph Ortiz, was convicted of murder, and he brings error.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.Irvine R. Wasson and George W. Sprenger, both of Peoria, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Henry E. Pratt, State's Atty., of Peoria, and Edward C. Fitch, of Springfield, for the People.

DE YOUNG, J.

Jose Ortiz, alias Joseph Ortiz, was indicted at the March, 1925, term of the circuit court of Peoria county for the murder of Emiliana Martinez. A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding him guilty and fixing his punishment at death. He made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and judgment was rendered, and sentence of death imposed. On his application this court allowed a writ of error, and made it a supersedeas, and the record is here for review.

The crime was committed near the foot of Morton street, in the city of Peoria. Morton street runs south to the Illinois river, which at the point in question flows in a southwesterly direction. The tracks of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company run westerly of and parallel with the river, and cross Morton street a short distance above its termination. Between the river and the railroad tracks are a number of shanties occupied by Mexicans. Emiliana Martinez was a Mexican girl about 17 years of age, and lived with her brother, Anthony Martinez, and his family, in one of these shanties. On the morning of March 12, 1924, Miss Martinez put a washing out on the line to dry. A little later Clara Coons, a neighbor, saw that some of the sheets were dragging upon the ground, and when she went to pin them more securely she looked over the bank toward the river, and discovered the body of Miss Martinez lying on the ground. At the requestof the coroner, the body was removed to an undertaking establishment, and in the evening an autopsy was performed. Three bullets were removed from the body. The large artery at the base of the neck was wounded, the injury causing a hemorrhage into the left pleural cavity sufficient to cause death. There was another bullet wound in the left thigh, and one in the right lower abdomen.

On the same morning Virgil Hill, a young man about 19 years of age, approached Anthony Martinez's home looking for Clarence Coons. As Hill crossed the railroad tracks, he saw a Maxican girl, with whom he was not acquainted, hanging up clothes, and inquired of her where Coons resided. She replied that she did not know. He then turned, walked a short distance toward the river, and was looking across it when he heard a man coming upon him from behind. As he looked backward, the man, whom he had never seen before, and who was dressed in overalls and a soft hat, but had no overcoat, approached more closely, and when a foot and half away, without uttering a word, fired his revolver. The bullet entered the right side of Hill's nose and passed out near the right ear. Hill then ran toward the river, and as he did so heard three shots, none of which appeared to be aimed at him, because he did not hear the sound of passing bullets. He hid behind a small shed, looked over the top of it, and saw the man who shot him approaching. Hill escaped to a roundhouse a short distance away, where employees of the railroad washed his face. Later he was removed to a hospital. While Hill was at the roundhouse, one of the railroad's employees saw a man cross the tracks and followed him. He was brought to the roundhouse and identified as Ortiz, the plaintiff in error. He was asked where he was going, and he answered that he was on the way to a store. When asked why he shot Hill, he denied it. A little later a police officer came, and one of the railroad men informed him that Hill had been shot by a Mexican; that he did not know whether Ortiz shot Hill or not, but that he ‘grabbed the first Mexican’ he saw. The officer took Ortiz into custody. He did not at that time wear overalls, but was dressed in an army overcoat, blue trousers, and a yellow hat.

Ortiz was questioned by the police at the city hall in Peoria. At first he denied the shooting, but later asked for Anthony Martinez, the brother of the deceased girl. After Martinez arrived, Ortiz talked with him in the Mexican language. The police officers were present, and Martinez translated into English what Ortiz said. Martinez inquired of him why he shot and killed his sister. Ortiz denied the charge, and added that he went to the store to buy some groceries. Martinez then asked him to tell the truth, and, in the event that he did so, offered to give him such assistance as he (Martinez) could render. Ortiz complied with the request, and told Martinez that he had sent his sister some letters and pictures, and that she had returned them; that on the morning in question he caught another man talking to her, and he instantly became jealous, caught the man, and shot him; that immediately after this shooting Martinez's sister called him, said that he should not make trouble about her home, and became angry; that he replied, ‘You like the white people pretty good,’ and then called her a name and shot her, and that, if she had not said a word to him, he would have killed the man, and she would not have been harmed. The police officers then asked him where he put the revolver with which he did the shooting, and he told them. They went to the place to which he directed them, and found the revolver, loaded with five shells. One of the officers inquired whether the revolver shown him was the one with which he shot the young woman, and he answered in the affirmative. He also admitted that he reloaded the revolver after the shooting. The revolver and the loaded cartridges were admitted in evidence.

Ortiz did not testify on the trial. The only evidence offered in his behalf was the testimony of two witnesses, both imprisoned in the county jail, one of whom testified that Ortiz had an inordinate appetite, and the other that he slept soundly.

On the hearing of the motion for a new trial, counsel for Ortiz sought to show that C. A. Donaldson, who served as a juror in the cause, before he was accepted as such. had said to one Happ, in speaking of Ortiz, that ‘they better not take me on that jury, or I will hang that Mexican _____;’ that Donaldson on his voir dire had failed to disclose his hostility to Ortiz, and had deceived both court and counsel in regard to his prejudice; and that Happ, owing to certain peculiar ideas, was unwilling to make an affidavit, but was present and ready to testify under oath that Donaldson had made the statement. When the offer of Happ's testimony was made by counsel for Ortiz, the trial judge stated that affidavits might be filed; but he refused to hear oral testimony on the motion, or to permit a record of the offer, and the ruling thereon, to be made. There followed, at the June, 1925, term of this court, an application for leave to file an original petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the trial judge to incorporate in the bill of exceptions in the cause the proceedings upon the motion for a new trial. Leave was granted, and upon the petition, and the respondent's answer thereto, the writ was awarded. The facts with reference to the motion for a new trial and its disposition are more fully set forth in the opinion in that cause, entitled People v. Green, 149 N. E. 231, 318 Ill. 421.

The contentions of plaintiff in error are: (1) That the venue was not proved; (2) that the evidence shows that plaintiff in error was insane; (3) that, if any crime was committed, it was voluntary manslaughter, and not murder; and (4) that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff in error to show, by oral testimony in support of his motion for a new trial, that Juror Donaldson was disqualified to serve, because of his prejudice against plaintiff in error.

The indictment charges that the crime was committed in Peoria county, Ill. Several witnesses testified that the place where plaintiff in error shot and killed Emiliana Martinez was located within that county. There was no countervailing evidence. To prove venue, it is sufficient if the evidence as a whole leaves no reasonable doubt that the criminal act was committed at the place laid in the indictment. People v. Shaw, 133 N. E. 208, 300 Ill. 451;People v. Allegretti, 126 N. E. 158, 291 Ill. 364;Porter v. People, 41 N. E. 886, 158 Ill. 370. The first contention is without merit.

[2][4] It is argued that, because plaintiff in error shot Hill when he found him in conversation with Emiliana Martinez, and because with childlike simplicity he confessed a serious crime, which ordinarily would interpose an insurmountable barrier to his acquittal, he is obviously insane. The fact that one's jealousy is easily aroused does not necessarily show a deluded mind. It does not follow that a man is insane because he lacks self-control. Nor does the making of a confession by a person charged with crime...