People v. Stepheny
| Decision Date | 04 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 50703 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon STEPHENY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gerald W. Getty, Chicago, James J. Doherty, Chicago, of counsel, for appellant.
Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago, Elmer C. Kissane, Joel M. Flaum, Chicago, of counsel, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County which found the appellant, Leon Stepheny, guilty of the crime of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced him to the penitentiary for a term of from ten to twenty years. Appellant's sole contention on this appeal is that he was not proven guilty of the crime of voluntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.
The facts of the case are as follows: Appellant and four other men, Lee Phillip Coleman, the deceased, Richard Coleman, deceased's brother and appellant's brother-in-law, Buck Field, and Willie Harris, were shooting craps at the home of Richard Coleman on the night of October 16, 1964. Both Richard Coleman and Buck field testified that during the course of the game the appellant and the deceased became involved in an argument over their earnings and over the fact that the deceased had not accepted a bet in the sum which the appellant had accepted when the deceased was shooting the dice. Appellant informed the deceased that if the deceased ever offered to bet the appellant at any time, one of the two of them would have to be carried out of the place. Deceased then asked the appellant for a five dollar bet, and the appellant, after repeating his previous warning, shot the deceased in the chest with a .45 caliber revolver.
Appellant, Leon Stepheny's testimony was essentially the same as that of the two witnesses for the People. However, his testimony did differ in one essential matter. Appellant testified at the trial that he shot the deceased when the deceased turned on him with a .22 caliber revolver in his hand, at which time the appellant drew his revolver and shot the deceased. Stepheny further testified that he had seen the .22 caliber revolver earlier in the deceased's pocket. However, no such gun as described by the appellant was ever found by investigating officers at the scene of the crime. The deceased's brother-in-law contradicted the appellant on the possession of the gun saying that he had not seen the deceased with a revolver on the night of the shooting.
Appellant was indicted for murder, but was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. It is well established in Illinois that a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter may be returned on an indictment charging murder, provided there is evidence to support the lower grade of homicide. People v. Lewis, 375 Ill. 330, 31 N.E.2d 795. The sum and substance of appellant's argument on this appeal is that the court should have found him guilty of murder or of nothing, that there was insufficient evidence to establish the provocation necessary to reduce a killing from murder to manslaughter. Appellant puts forth two propositions to support this contention. One is that mere words are not sufficient provocation to reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter. The other is that the appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thompson
...249, 280 N.E.2d 764 (1972), People v. Goolsby, 45 Ill.App.3d 441, 4 Ill.Dec. 38, 359 N.E.2d 871 (1977), and People v. Stepheny, 76 Ill.App.2d 131, 221 N.E.2d 798 (1966), do not address the issue of grossly disproportionate retaliation as negating the mutual combat aspect of Accordingly, we ......
-
People v. Goolsby, 62452
...480, 323 N.E.2d 360 (Abst.); People v. Johnson (1972), 4 Ill.App.3d 249, 252, 280 N.E.2d 764, 766--767.) In People v. Stepheny (1966), 76 Ill.App.2d 131, 221 N.E.2d 798, it was held that a quarrel over a dice game was sufficient provocation to warrant the reduced charge of voluntary manslau......
-
People v. Arnold
...den. 397 U.S. 1028, 90 S.Ct. 1274, 25 L.Ed.2d 538.) Cases cited by the defendant are inapposite on their facts. In People v. Stepheny (1966), 76 Ill.App.2d 131, 221 N.E.2d 798, the killing occurred after the exchange of harsh words and a quarrel of some duration. In People v. Newberry (1970......
-
People v. Echoles
...N.E.2d 282; People v. Hough, 102 Ill.App.2d 287, 243 N.E.2d 520; People v. Gajda, 87 Ill.App.2d 316, 232 N.E.2d 49; People v. Stepheny, 76 Ill.App.2d 131, 221 N.E.2d 798.) These cases thus serve to illustrate the decisive role of the factfinder when a fatal act is variously contended to hav......