People v. Schaffner

• Decision Date: 10 March 1943
• Docket Number: No. 26796.,26796.
• Citation: 382 Ill. 266,46 N.E.2d 989
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SCHAFFNER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

382 Ill. 266

46 N.E.2d 989

PEOPLE

v.SCHAFFNER.

No. 26796.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 19, 1943.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 1943.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Robert Jerome Dunne, Judge.

Nathaniel Schaffner was convicted of murder while attempting to produce an abortion, and he brings error.

Affirmed.Ode L. Rankin, Cameron Latter, James E. Daniels, and Sol R. Friedman, all of Chicago (Franklin V. Stransky, of Savanna, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, and Julius L. Sherwin, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

WILSON, Justice.

The defendant, Nathaniel Schaffner, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for the murder of Emma Laisure while attempting to produce an abortion. A jury found him guilty and fixed his punishment at fourteen years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. Defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

Recital of certain undisputed facts at the outset, we believe, will be helpful for a proper understanding of the issues. Emma Laisure, twenty-seven years old, the wife of Earl Laisure, a taxicab driver, and the mother of two children, died July 7, 1941, on the occasion of her third visit to defendant's office, located at 4009 Lincoln avenue, in Chicago. She arrived shortly before 3:30 P.M., accompanied by her husband and four-year-old daughter. Her husband remained in the reception room, while she, at defendant's request, entered an adjoining room. She was placed upon a table, in a sitting position, her feet encased in stirrup-like hooks. Within five minutes, during the course of the treatment being administered by defendant, she collapsed. Defendant removed her from the table to a studio couch in the room, administered a hypodermic injection in her arm, and applied artificial respiration, but to no avail. The husband remained until defendant pronounced her dead. When Laisure departed, defendant moved the corpse from the couch on to the table and closed the door. He did not call for an inhalator squad, neither did he notify the coroner's office nor summon the police. While the body was on the table in the closed room, defendant treated other patients until about 8:30 P.M. He then proceeded to Laisure's home, discussed with Laisure and the latter's sister-in-law, Theresa Gross, the hiring of an undertaker whom he, defendant, recommended. According to defendant's testimony, the body remained on the table in his office the entire period from shortly after 3:30 P.M. until after midnight, when he delivered the body in his own automobile to Laisure's home. Prior to taking the body out of his office, he wrapped it in a grey blanket. As he himself testified: ‘I got the body downstairs myself. Rigor mortis had set in; the body was almost like a board. I lifted it all the way down and rested it on my knees as I was advancing towards the street.’ Defendant was arrested about 2:30 A.M., July 8, 1941, in an alley at the rear of premises occupied by his sister. He insisted he was not Dr. Schaffner and claimed his name wa Phillips until identified by Herbert Gross, a brother-in-law of deceased.

The evidence was conflicting as to the purpose of Emma Laisure's visits to defendant's office. Earl Laisure testified that on June 27, 1941, when he and his wife first visited defendant's office he announced to defendant he had brought his wife there for an abortion and that he handed to defendant a paper (People's exhibit 1) containing defendant's name and address, procured from Joseph Lamping, a fellow employee, pursuant to an inquiry for the name of a doctor who would perform an abortion. The witness was corroborated by William Garnet, also a fellow employee, who testified he was present at the time of the conversation. Lamping, called as a witness by defendant, admitted suggesting defendant's name and furnishing his address, but maintained he did so because Laisure had stated his wife was pregnant and that he desired the name of a maternity doctor who was fair and reasonable. Laisure further testified that defendant, after examining his wife on the first visit, stated she was pregnant and agreed to perform an abortion, but that he and defendant were unable to agree upon a fee, defendant demanding $65, later reduced to $50, whereas he insisted he could not pay more than $40. Defendant denied that when he first met Laisure and his wife he was handed People's exhibit 1, and did not recall whether Lamping's name was mentioned. He admitted examining Emma Laisure and determining her pregnancy, but declared that he strongly admonished Laisure and his wife against an abortion because of the risk involved, owing to his patient's advanced pregnant condition. Defendant asserted that there was no discussion of a fee for an abortion but that the difference between $65 and $40 related to the figure set by him as his charge for maternity care if he handled the case. He added that subsequent to his examination, Laisure exhibited four ten-dollar bills which he offered him if he, defendant, would agree to perform an abortion, but that he refused the money, stating ‘I am sorry, I cannot accept that kind of money for that kind of work.’

On Emma Laisure's second visit to defendant's office July 2, 1941, she went alone. Defendant testified that on this occasion he merely assured her he was serious when he had warned her and her husband against abortion and its dangers.

Over the holiday on July 4, 1941, Laisure, his wife and two children, together with his wife's sister, Theresa Gross and her husband, Herbert, made an automobile trip to St. Louis, returning about 1:00 o'clock A.M. the morning of July 7. From Laisure's testimony it appears that his wife complained of a headache and of being tired on the return trip, but that she apparently was not adversely affected by the trip; that on the morning of July 7 she prepared breakfast, and that she did not complain in any way about her health.

Laisure testified that when he and his wife arrived at defendant's office on July 7 defendant asked his wife if she was ready; that she replied, ‘Yes;’ that, in response to defendant's query seeking his permission ‘to go ahead with this,’ he refused, stating that his wife insisted upon having an abortion performed; that defendant nevertheless stated his willingness to proceed; that his wife and defendant then entered an adjoining room; that only a portion of the table was visible to him; that within a few minutes he heard his wife shout, ‘I thought you said this wasn't going to hurt;’ that defendant said something which he did not hear; that immediately thereafter his wife screamed, ‘I can't breathe, I can't breathe,’ and that he thereupon hurried into the room. At this time, according to Laisure, defendant was standing at his wife's feet, which were elevated and encased in stirrup-like hooks; defendant released one of her feet and she arose to a sitting position and collapsed, and defendant partly carried and partly dragged her into another room and placed her on a couch. He also testified that the operating table had newspapers at one end, covered with water, and that he observed a steaming sterilizer with instruments in it and several instruments lying on a table nearby, including a syringe. Laisure stated that his wife's color was ‘pasty’ when she was brought to the couch, and that defendant injected something into her arm and used a stethoscope on her chest. In answer to Laisure's inquiry whether she was dead, defendant replied: ‘Now don't get excited. I will take care of everything. I will pay for all the funeral arrangements and everything else. Just be quiet. Don't tell anybody about it. My career is at stake.’ According to Laisure, defendant then went back to the room where the table was located, picked up an instrument made of chrome metal and stated, ‘I don't know why she should die. That is all I used on her,’ the instrument being approximately thirteen inches long, with a handle on the end, and having a tubular extension about three-eighths of an inch in width, at the end of which was a little bulb about the size of a pea. Laisure then departed, stating he had to take care of his child. Before leaving, at defendant's request, he filled out a blue paper, introduced as People's exhibit 2, giving his name, address and telephone number.

Laisure added that about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, defendant came to his home and offered him $500 for funeral expenses; that upon his refusal, defendant handed him a card (People's exhibit 3) containing a funeral director's name, stating ‘This is a friend of mine, he will take care of the arrangements;’ that later, in the presence of Theresa Gross, defendant said, ‘We will call her death heart trouble and mark that on the death certificate,’ and that defendant again admonished him not to go to the police, stating ‘My reputation is at stake. I will have to commit suicide if you go to the police,’ and that to Theresa Gross's query as to what he had done to Emma Laisure, defendant replied, ‘All I did was scrape her a little bit,’ stating that he did not inject anything into her. Defendant, according to Laisure, alsostated that the funeral director would not take the body direct from his office but that he, defendant, would bring it in his car to Laisure's home about 1:00 or 1:30 o'clock in the morning. Theresa Gross substantially corroborated Laisure's testimony as to this conversation. Defendant admitted the visit to Laisure but stated that Laisure maintained he did not have any money and had not called an undertaker. In a statement the morning of his arrest, defendant admitted he had offered to make a loan to Laisure, if needed, for the funeral expenses. Upon the trial, he admitted handing Laisure a card containing the name of a funeral director, but stated it was only because he desired to have the corpse removed from his...