People v. Tilden
| Decision Date | 03 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 49471 |
| Citation | 200 N.E.2d 33,50 Ill.App.2d 354 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Commodore TILDEN, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Thomas F. Roche, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Springfield, Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Fred G. Leach, J. Michael O'Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., Elmer C. Kissane, William J. Nellis, Asst. State's Attys., for defendant in error.
This case is before us on a writ of error to review a judgment of the criminal court of Cook County entered on a jury verdict finding the defendant, Commodore Tilden, guilty of murder and fixing his punishment at fourteen years in the state penitentiary.
The defendant's first contention is that People's exhibits two, three and four, being certain articles of clothing worn by one James Pickett on the night of the shooting, although not admitted in evidence, were improperly displayed to the jury, and that the defendant was prejudiced thereby. James Pickett was the uncle of the victim, Essie Pickett.
According to defendant's account of the events on the night in question, he had apent the evening with James Pickett, Robert Freeman, Leon Hampton and Essie Pickett. At about three A.M. on the morning of March 12, 1960, he was riding alone in the back seat of James Pickett's automobile. Essie Pickett was driving, Robert Freeman was sitting to the right of her, and James Pickett was sitting to the right of Robert Freeman, next to the door. Defendant had been engaged in an argument with James and Essie Pickett. Essie Pickett stopped the car and went around to the truck. When she returned she was carrying something. James Pickett pulled out a gun and pointed it at defendant. Defendant grabbed the gun and it discharged. He struggled with James Pickett for possession of the gun and during the struggle the gun fired two more times.
James Pickett testified that the defendant pulled the gun on him and held it to the back of his head. Essie Pickett got out of the car, pulled the front seat forward and ordered defendant to leave the car. Defendant then fired two shots into her. James Pickett started to get out of the car to assist her and defendant shot him in the chest. The witness further testified that he then got out of the car and ran over and started pounding on a nearby window. Defendant shot him again. He turned and started running and defendant shot him twice more, one shot hitting him in the back. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Robert Freeman.
James Pickett identified People's exhibits two, three and four as the clothing he was wearing at the time of the shooting. He also identified certain holes in the clothing as having been caused by the bullets fired into him by the defendant.
In support of his contention that it was prejudicial to allow these articles of clothing to be displayed to the jury, defendant cites People v. Nickolopoulos, 25 Ill.2d 451, 185 N.E.2d 209. In the Nickolopoulos case the defendant was charged with assault with intent to commit murder. Defendant testified that he was too drunk to know what he was doing. The undisputed evidence established that the defendant had shot one Kallianiotis. Testimony establishing the presence of blood on the victim's clothing, on the floor and on the stretcher on which he was carried from the scene was allowed to stand over objection as was testimony regarding the extent of the victim's injuries. A question was asked of the defendant as to whether or not when he saw Kallianiotis in the hospital, Kallianiotis was being fed intravenously. An objection to this question was sustained. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the above testimony and the objected to question were irrelevant and operated to the prejudice of the defendant. The court on page 454 of 25 Ill.2d, 185 N.E.2d on page 210 quoted with approval from People v. Carter, 410 Ill. 462, 102 N.E.2d 312, as follows:
'The specific intent required by the charge is found, not from the nature or seriousness of the injury inflicted, but from the proof of the reckless character and manner of the assault, the instrument made use of by the assailant, and the other facts and circumstances shown by the evidence as indicating a malicious heart and mind.'
Further on the same page the court said:
In the case at bar, if the defendant's story be believed, he did not deliberately fire the gun at or towards anyone. His contention is that the gun was initially in the possession of James Pickett, and the fatal shots were fired either while the defendant was attempting to wrest the gun from him, or during the struggle subsequent to defendant's gaining control of the weapon. Under such circumstances, malice would not be implied, and it would not be sufficient to establish malice for the state to show only that the defendant fired the fatal shots.
The clothing worn by James Pickett on the night of the shooting, complete with bullet holes, showed certain inaccuracies in and improbabilities of the defendant's version of the shooting. Defendant testified first that during the struggle the gun went off three times. On crossexamination he revised this figure to four. The holes in James Pickett's clothing showed that four...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gilyard
...defendant and the crime, where a witness identifies the property as similar in appearance to the property stolen.' People v. Tilden, 50 Ill.App.2d 354, 200 N.E.2d 33 (1964); People v. Mikka, 7 Ill.2d 454, 131 N.E.2d 79 (1955); People v. Jones, 22 Ill.2d 592, 177 N.E.2d 112 In People v. Tild......
-
People v. Pearson
... ... (Other cases distinguishing Nickolopoulos and allowing use of allegedly prejudicial evidence on grounds of relevancy are: People v. Heller, Ill.App., 267 N.E.2d 685 (1971); People v. Doyle, 76 Ill.App.2d 302, 222 N.E.2d 205 (1966); and People v. Tilden, 50 Ill.App.2d 354, 200 N.E.2d 33 (1964).) ... Defendant places particular reliance on the fact that the probation officer recommended probation and asserts that the trial court improperly denied his petition for probation. The Illinois Supreme Court has consistently held that the ... ...
-
People v. Williamson
... ... And there was ample testimony that defendant knew both of those two men very well ... [44 Ill.App.3d 214] In our opinion, the State's distinction is tenable in a bench trial, and there is some support for it in People v. Tilden (1964), 50 Ill.App.2d 354, 358, 200 N.E.2d 33. We hold that the revolver was properly admitted into evidence in this bench trial 3 for the sole purpose of impeachment of defendant's credibility by creating at least the possibility that defendant was not telling the truth in making her said ... ...