People v. Rose
| Decision Date | 23 April 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21209.,21209. |
| Citation | 180 N.E. 791,348 Ill. 214 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ROSE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, St. Clair County; Henry G. Miller, Judge.
Elwood Rose and another were convicted for murder, and the former brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Louis P. Zerweck, of East St. Louis, and C. C. Dreman, of Princeton, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., H. C. Lindauer, State's Atty., of Belleville, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Curt C. Lindauer and John T. Thomas, both of Belleville, and E. F. Bareis, of East St. Louis, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Elwood Rose, and C. D. Eckford, were jointly indicted and convicted in the circuit court of St. Clair county for the murder of Elbert Mankin. Both defendants were found guilty, and Rose was sentenced to death by electrocution and Eckford was sentenced to the penitentiary for ninety-nine years. Rose has sued out this writ of error to review the judgment of his conviction.
On August 21, 1931, at about 8:30 or 9 o'clock p. m., five white boys were riding in a two-seated Chevrolet coach along the old Cahokia road, just south of East St. Louis. They stopped by the roadside and repaired a flat tire, and after all of the boys but one got into the car two colored men came up to it and at the point of a revolver ordered them to get out. This they did, and the colored men searched and robbed them of some articles of personal property. The robbers saw the headlights of a car coming, and ordered the boys to walk over to and lie down in a patch of weeds so that they could not be seen while they were on the ground. The place of the robbery was near where the road crossed the tracks of the Terminal Railroad Company. While the boys were still on the ground, Mankin, who was a police officer for the railroad company, walked toward them. One of the robbers ran out on the road and shouted ‘Halt!’ and then fired a shot which struck Mankin. Mankin fell to the ground, and then fired six shots at the colored men, who ran away. Mankin died before assistance could be had to remove him to a hospital.
Upon arraignment the court appointed Louis P. Zerwick and C. C. Dreman to defend both Rose and Eckford. Prior to the trial, the attorneys made a motion for a separate trial on behalf of Rose, supported by affidavits stating that the defenses of Rose and Eckford were inconsistent. Rose in his affidavit stated that he did not fire the shot that resulted in Mankin's death, but that it was fired by Eckford without the knowleged, consent, or assistance of Rose; that upon the trial of the cause he would offer evidence and testify that Eckford fired the fatal shot; that Eckford would attempt to prove, and would testify, that he was not present at the time and place of the shooting, and that he did not shoot Mankin; and that the defense of Rose and that of Eckford were inconsistent. Zerwick stated in his affidavit that he had made an investigation of the defenses to be offered by the defendants, and that they were inconsistent, and, if the defendants were tried together, they would not receive a fair and impartial trial, that the defendant Rose would testify that he did not fire the shot that caused the death of Mankin, but that the shot was fired by Eckford, and that Eckford would testify that he was not present at the time or place of the shooting. The motion for severance was overruled by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lekas
...trials prevent counsel from presenting the kind of defense that would be used if the defendant were tried alone. In People v. Rose (1932), 348 Ill. 214, 180 N.E. 791, two defendants, Rose and Eckford, were convicted of murder and sentenced to death for shooting a railroad policeman who inte......
-
People v. Robinson
...is that as the result of a conflict of interest evidence beneficial to one defendant will not be offered (People v. Rose (1932), 348 Ill. 214, 180 N.E. 791), to conclude that this argument in any manner arose from any desire or effort to aid Winston by reason of his representation by the pu......
-
People v. Meng
... ... Unless defendant properly establishes that a conflict of interest actually exists, or this fact becomes apparent during the trial itself, the court will not indulge in speculation to determine whether separate counsel, in the interest of justice and a fair trial, is required. People v. Rose, 348 Ill. 214, 180 N.E. 791 (1932) and People v. Bopp, 279 Ill. 184, 116 N.E. 679 (1917)." ... I do not believe that the "subtle effect," whatever that means, of some undescribed conflict of interest should be the basis for requiring separate counsel ... ...
-
People v. Bean
...is sufficient to require severance. There is no requirement that the prejudice must be symmetrical. (See generally People v. Rose (1932), 348 Ill. 214, 180 N.E. 791 (error to deny motion for severance where codefendant claimed he was not present during shooting and defendant did not testify......