People v. Smalley

Decision Date15 March 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72--25,72--25
Citation294 N.E.2d 305,10 Ill.App.3d 416
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald SMALLEY, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Paul Bradley, Ralph Ruebner, Ill. Defender Project, Elgin, for defendant-appellant.

Charles Marshall, State's Atty., Sycamore, James W. Jerz, Elgin, for plaintiff-appellee.

SEIDENFELD, Justice:

Defendant, Donald Smalley, Se., was tried before a jury in the circuit court of DeKalb County and found guilty of the attempted murder of Lawrence Williams and or aggravated assault upon April Backstrom (charges of aggravated battery and aggravated assault upon Lawrence Williams were dropped by the State at the close of the evidence). He was sentenced to 3 to 20 years on the charge of attempted murder and 1 to 5 years on the charge of aggravated assault, to be served concurrently.

Defendant appeals, contending (1) that the indictment failed to state the offense of aggravated assault: (2) that he was not proved guilty of attempted murder beyond a resonable doubt; (3) that the court erred in the receipt of evidence and the giving of instructions; (4) that the court and State improperly emphasized defendant's prior convictions; and (5) that the State's closing argument, and a remark made by the court during that argument, were prejudicial.

Lawrence Williams testified for the prosecution that on January 16, 1971, he called defendant from Chicago and was told to come to the Smalley home in Clare, Illinois, to collect a debt. He left in company with Alice Backstrom, bringing a .38 caliber pistol loaded with six bullets which he placed in a zippered briefcase on the front seat of his car. He explained that he did not want to leave it in his apartment because of a previous burglary.

When he arrived at the Smalley residence, after accidentally driving a block past the house, he saw a pick-up truck in the driveway but no cars. He had started to pull in front of the garage to back out, thinking that no one was home, when they saw defendant in the garage doorway about 4 or 5 feet from the hood of the car. Williams started to get out of his car but got back in when Miss Backstrom yelled that defendant had a gun.

Williams testified that defendant started shooting a rifle, with the first shot going into the left hand door post and other shots through the windshield. Williams said he then pulled his gun from the case, and returned the fire through the windshield from a lying position. He then was able to back out of the driveway. At the time, Williams was on probation for burglary, and was not supposed to have a gun in his possession. He was granted immunity to testify.

April Backstrom testified for the State that she lived with Williams, and that he normally took the gun with him when leaving his apartment. Essentially she corroborated Williams' version of the incident.

Detective Harold Eckhardt and Police Captain Melvin Shaw testified that one bullet hole was found above the door frame of the garage, about 7 1/2 feet above the ground. Four empty rifle cartridges were found on the floor of the garage. The inside and back wall of the garage were checked, but no other bullet holes were found. Tire tracks from the left front wheel of Williams' car were approximately 16 feet from the garage door. Glass and a blood-like substance were found 16 feet from the door of the garage.

Detective Sergeant James Laben testified that Donald Smalley made a statement on the evening of January 16, 1971, in which he said that Lawrence Williams claimed that defendant owed him money, and had made numerous calls with reference to it. He had called the previous Wednesday and told defendant's wife that defendant had better send the money or he would send someone to collect it. The last call had been on the morning of the incident, when Williams said 'he would be out today to get some money or some ass.' When Williams arrived, he parked where he could see the house, and defendnat took his rifle to the garage. When Williams pulled up, he stepped out of the car and fired once at defendant. Defendant grabbed his rifle and returned a shot. Williams got back in the car and fired five shots through the windshield. Defendant fire three more shots, and Williams backed out of the driveway and took off. Defendant returned to the house and called the Sheriff.

Fred Aubey, a ballistics expert, testified that he examined the windshield of Williams' automobile and determined that the six holes on the passenger side of the windshield were caused by a projectile originating from within the vehicle, and the black marks on them were similar to powder burns from the close range firing of a weapon. The three holes in the lower center of the windshield had no powder paterns, and originated from outside the vehicle. There was also a penetrating hole on the driver's side in the lower corner. He agreed that the holes could have been produced by almost anything projected at a high velocity, but said that they had the physical appearance of bullet holes. He could not say whether the six holes on the passenger side were made by on gun, or whether they were made in rapid succession.

Donald Smalley, Sr., the defendant, testified on his own behalf that Williams called him on the morning of the incident and said he was coming to defendant's house for the money he claimed defendant owed him. Defendant denied owing him money. After the call, defendant called the Sheriff in Plymouth, Indiana, and learned Williams was wanted for nonpayment of child support. Defendant then called the DeKalb Sheriff's Department and told them a man wanted in Plymouth was coming to his house, and asked if they would apprehend him. When Williams arrived, he drove past the house, turned around, came back, and parked for 8 to 10 minutes at a spot from which the house was visible. When Williams began to drive toward the house, defendant yelled for his wife to call the Sheriff. Williams pulled into the driveway, drove near the garage, and stopped 15 to 18 feet away. He stepped from the car with a pistol in his hand, and seeing this, defendant dove for his rifle and told Williams to 'get out of there'. Williams fired a shot at defendant from outside the car, and defendant returned the fire. Williams then got back in the car and fired four more shots through the windshield. Defendant fired three more shots through the windshield of the car. After the battle, defendant phoned the DeKalb Sheriff's Department.

Leota Smalley, the defendant's wife, testified that when Williams arrived, he waited for 10 minutes on the side of the road, pulled his car onto the driveway, and stepped out. She heard a shot and saw him get back in the car. She saw nothing further because defendant hollered for her to call the sheriff, but she heard four other shots.

Nancy Smalley, defendant's daughter-in-law, testified that she saw Williams' car go by, come back, and stop for five or ten minutes. She said Williams then drove quickly into the driveway, jumped out before the car had stopped, and shot a gun, making a 'pinging' sound. Theer was then a loud shot, and Williams jumped back in the car. She said both the man and woman in the car were shooting, and saw five shots inside the car. On rebuttal, a detective testified that, questioned after the shooting, she had said only that she heard a noise, went to the window and saw a ball of fire in the car, and went into the living room.

Patrol Sergeant George Shaw testified in rebuttal that he was in charge of receiving all calls at the DeKalb Sheriff's Department on the day of the incident, and there was no call from Donald or Leota Smalley concerning Williams before the incident took place.

Defendant's first contention is that the indictment, charging him with aggravated assault, is insufficient in that it does not set forth the nature and elements of the offense charged. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 111--3(a).) The indictment charged that defendant 'committed the offense of Aggravated Assault in that he, without lawful authority, assaulted April Backstrom with a deadly weapon, namely a gun . . ..'

The purpose of an indictment is to apprise a defendant of the exact crime with which he is charged, so that he may prepare his defense, and may plead the judgment in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. (People v. Grieco (1970), 44 Ill.2d 407, 409, 255 N.E.2d 897, U.S. cert. den., 400 U.S. 825, 91 S.Ct. 49, 27 L.Ed.2d 54; People v. Harvey (1972), Ill., 294 N.E.2d 269.) Whether these objectives are met must be determined by the substance of the charge, rather than by the technicalities of the language. (People v. Dzielski (1970), 130 Ill.App.2d 581, 585--586, 264 N.E.2d 426.) This indictment contained the statutory language (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 12--2(a)(1)), and further stated that the instrument used was a gun. In addition, on defendant's motion, a bill of particulars was provided setting out that the assault was perpetrated by defendant's shooting of the gun. The indictment was sufficient to support a plea of double jeopardy should the need arise, and defendant was provided with adequate information to prepare his defense. See People v. Fulton (1967),84 Ill.App.2d 280, 283, 228 N.E.2d 203, U.S. cert. den., 390 U.S. 953, 88 S.Ct. 1045, 19 L.Ed.2d 1145. See also People v. Jones (1972), Ill., 292 N.E.2d 361.

Defendant next contends that he was not proved guilty of attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt. He argues first that the State has not proved that he, rather than Williams, fired the first shot, and thus that he was not acting in self-defense. The testimony of those present as to who fired the first shot is contradictory. Lawrence Williams and April Backstrom stated that Williams was unarmed when he left the car and was fired upon, and that Williams then fired all shots from within the car. Defendant and Nancy Smalley said that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • People v. Anderson, 1-90-3460
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 30, 1993
    ...will not be considered prejudicial error. Heidorn, 114 Ill.App.3d at 937, 70 Ill.Dec. 439, 449 N.E.2d 568; People v. Smalley (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 416, 427, 294 N.E.2d 305. Defendant contends that the trial court's comments during voir dire and during the closing argument of his attorney de......
  • People v. Mazzone
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 13, 1977
    ...That's true. Mr. Artoe: Seen Marlon Brando in one of them, Your Honor? The Court: I didn't watch it." In People v. Smalley (2d Dist. 1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 416, 427, 294 N.E.2d 305, 312, the Court stated: "It is true that there is a high duty on the Court to avoid giving any impression to the......
  • People v. Christen, 79-139
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 17, 1980
    ... ... Smalley (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 416, 294 N.E.2d 305; see also People v. Biella (1940), 374 Ill. 87, 28 N.E.2d 111; People v. Limas (1977), 45 Ill.App.3d 643, 4 Ill.Dec. 242, 359 N.E.2d 1194; and People v. Johnson (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 425, 355 N.E.2d 699 ...         In the present case, the trial ... ...
  • People v. Williams, 4-86-0520
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 31, 1987
    ...intent was introduced at trial, and therefore the exclusion of this testimony was, at worst, harmless error. (People v. Smalley (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 416, 294 N.E.2d 305.) The State also points out that immediately after the court's ruling, defendant stated that he indicated to the individu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT