People v. Papas
| Decision Date | 17 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 26748.,26748. |
| Citation | 44 N.E.2d 896,381 Ill. 90 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. PAPAS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John A. Sbarbaro, Judge.
Athon Papas was convicted of murder. and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.Wm. Scott Stewart, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the criminal court of Cook county. Plaintiff in error, Athon Papas, was convicted by the verdict of a jury of the crime of murder. After the denial of a motion for new trial, he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ninety-nine years.
The fatal shooting occurred about 12:30 on the morning of May 29, 1939. Muriel Campbell, the deceased, was one of a party of five high school students who had been out together that evening in Muriel's car. As they drove by a fruit store at Park and North avenue, Muriel said she was hungry and wanted some fruit. They drove around the block and parked in front of the stand, and Muriel, Harry Feigenbaum and Helen Freilich got out of the car and walked over to the stand. Helen picked up a watermelon and tossed it to Muriel, who caught it and threw it back. Helen dropped it and it cracked; they then picked it up and started into the store with it. About that time Christ Neforas, a clerk in the store, came out and accused the girls of stealing the melon and said he would call the police. Although they offered to pay the damages, Neforas told Helen Freilich to come into the store. Muriel returned to the car and told Feigenbaum that Helen was being detained by Neforas. Feigenbaum then got out of the car and went into the store where Helen was being detained by the clerk.
The defendant, Papas, who was engaged as a watchman at the fruit store, was in the back of the store at the time eating his midnight lunch. Neforas called to him to come out, and told him that Harry Feigenbaum and Helen Freilich had stolen the melon. From this point, the accounts as to what happened differ. Helen Freilich and Harry Feigenbaum testified that Harry tried to reason with Neforas and Papas, and offered to pay for the melon. They denied any intention of stealing it. Papas then drew a gun, and seized Harry by the arm, tearing his sweater; Harry resisted and Papas fired a shot into the floor. By that time Helen had left the store. As Harry wrenched himself away from Papas, he fell into a bin of potatoes. As he arose he commenced throwing potatoes at Papas for the purpose of spoiling his aim if Papas tried to shoot again. Papas was thus driven to the rear of the store, and Harry went out the front door and joined Muriel, who had come back in the meantime and was outside the store. After leaving the store, they walked about twenty feet, looking for the car. Bernard Goldstein, who had remained in the car had moved it upon hearing the shot. Not seeing the car, Harry, Muriel and Helen started to run across a vacant lot and up an alley. As they ran down the alley two shots were fired by Papas, one of which struck Muriel in the back of the head and killed her instantly. The point where she fell was some 290 feet from the store.
Defendant's version of the events leading up to the fatal shooting is found in the testimony of Neforas and Papas. They say that as soon as Papas was informed of the charges Harry Feigenbaum and Helen attempted to leave the store, and Papas grabbed Harry to detain him. A scuffle followed, in which Feigenbaum's sweater was torn off. Neforas' testimony is uncertain and contradictory. He says he had started to the telephone to call the police. Papas insists that Harry hit him in the face and kicked him; that he then fired into the floor to scare Harry; that Harry jumped back and fell into the potatoes. Papas' glasses were broken by Harry's blows and fell to the floor. Papas says Harry chased him into the back room and threw potatoes at him, and that meanwhile the girl disappeared. When he came back out Harry was leaving, and as he got to the front door he saw Harry going through the vacant lot. Papas claimed that he fired two shots into the air to frighten Harry; that he never saw either Muriel or Helen when the shots were fired. When he fired the second shot he heard a girl scream and went back into the store, where he awaited the arrival of the police.
The bullet which struck deceased was fired from Papas' gun. There is no question raised that Papas did not fire the fata-shot.
The case came on for trial on July 26, 1939. On July 1, 1939, the amendment to the Jury Commissioners act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1941, c. 78, § 25, making women eligible for jury duty, became effective. No women were included in the panel. The defendant challenged the array for that reason. The prosecutor informed the court that the jury commissioners considered the amendment unconstitutional and refused to follow it for that reason. The court then overruled the challenge without any further hearing. Since that time the constitutionality of the amendment has been upheld by this court in People ex rel. Denny v. Traeger, 372 Ill. 11, 22 N.E.2d 679.
It is argued that the trial court erred in overruling the challenge to the array. The record shows that defendant's challenge was in writing. It alleged that a diligent examination of the record showed none of the jurors on the panel to be women; that the jury commissioners had wilfully failed to comply with the act, as amended. Standing alone, this challenge would not constitute grounds for allowing the challenge, since it was not sworn to, and it is presumed that the commissioners acted legally. People v. Konkowski, 378 Ill. 616, 39 N.E.2d 13. However, counsel for defendant offered to prove the allegations in the motion, challenging the array, but the prosecuting attorney stated,
The only reasonable interpretation which can be placed upon the action of the trial court in this regard is that it intended to ignore the act of the legislature until such time as this court should decide whether or not that act was constitutional. This, the court had no right to do. By such action the court assumed the law to be unconstitutional until its validity had been determined by this court. The presumption, if any, is in favor of the constitutionality of an act, and not against it. If the trial court was unwilling to pass upon the question of the constitutionality of the act, then it was the court's duty to follow the mandate of the law until its invalidity had been determined.
In the view we take of this case, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lewis
...v. Bratcher, 63 Ill.2d 534, 539, 349 N.E.2d 31 (1976) ; People v. Izzo, 14 Ill.2d 203, 211, 151 N.E.2d 329 (1958) ; People v. Papas, 381 Ill. 90, 95, 44 N.E.2d 896 (1942) ; People v. Scalisi, 324 Ill. 131, 145, 154 N.E. 715 (1926). For example, in Everette, our supreme court held “a homicid......
-
People v. Davis
...see also People v. Bell, 113 Ill. App.3d 588, 598, 69 Ill.Dec. 474, 447 N.E.2d 909, 916-17 (1983); see also People v. Papas, 381 Ill. 90, 96, 44 N.E.2d 896, 898-99 (1942) ("In a case tried by a jury it is the province of the jury, not the judge, to decide the guilt or innocence of the accus......
-
People v. Weisberg
......People v. Savant, 301 Ill. 225, 133 N.E. 775;People v. Lucas, 244 Ill. 603, 91 N.E. 659;Dunn v. People, 109 Ill. 635. Defendant cites People v. Pursley, 302 Ill. 62, 134 N.E. 128, and People v. Papas, 381 Ill. 90, 44 N.E.2d 896. In both of these cases an instruction for manslaughter was offered by the defendant and refused by the court, and convictions in these cases were reversed because there was evidence introduced, which, if believed, would have warranted a manslaughter verdict. The general ......
-
People v. Everette
......Kalpak (1957), 10 Ill.2d 411, 425, 140 N.E.2d 726; People v. Khamis (1951), 411 Ill. 46, 53, 103 N.E.2d 133) or where it is inconsistent with defendant's own testimony (People v. Izzo (1958), 14 Ill.2d 203, 211, 151 N.E.2d 329; People v. Papas (1942), 381 Ill. 90, 96, 44 N.E.2d 896; People v. Scalisi (1926), 324 Ill. 131, 145, 154 N.E. 715). The Supreme Court recently observed that, "[a]s a general proposition, a defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense . Page 1299 . [152 Ill.Dec. 381] for which there ......