People v. Willson

• Decision Date: 24 September 1948
• Docket Number: No. 30573.,30573.
• Citation: People v. Willson, 401 Ill. 68, 81 N.E.2d 485 (Ill. 1948)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WILLSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

401 Ill. 68

81 N.E.2d 485

PEOPLE

v.WILLSON.

No. 30573.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 24, 1948.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Caswell J. Crebs, Judge.

Lois Willson was convicted of murder, and she brings error.

Reversed.

James H. Bandy and Goldenhersh & Goldenhersh, all of East St. Louis, for plaintiff in error.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Virgil W. Mills, State's Atty., of Fairfield (Francis S. Feiger, of Fairfield, of counsel), for the People.

GUNN, Justice.

Lois Willson was charged with the murder of her husband by the grand jury of Wayne County, and upon a trial by jury was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of fifty years.She prosecutes a writ of error out of this court.

The controlling feature of the case is whether the competent evidence is sufficient to show the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and, hence, a critical analysis of the testimony is necessary.

Leon Willson and his wife and two children, Linden Lee Willson and Linda Lou Willson, lived in a three-room house on a small farm in Wayne County.On the afternoon of November 3, 1946, the family of Jennings Holman visited that of the deceased, and during the afternoon Mr. Holman and the deceased went hunting, and after returning the family stayed to dinner with the Willsons, and left in the neighborhood of eight o'clock in the evening.No circumstances are narrated by the Holmans indicating a rift in the domestic life of the deceased and his wife.

On the morning of November 4, about 7:30 o'clock, the defendant called from her yard to that of the Carter family, who lived about thirty-five rods away, upon the same road, urging some one to come quick that Linden had shot Leon, and ‘I think killed him; he has never moved yet.’Lindy Carter, the person in the yard, came over immediately, entered the house, and found a shotgun, one end of which was on a chair in the kitchen and the other end on the floor, and the deceased lying in bed upon his face, badly injured.He inquired of the defendant where the car keys were, and she said in the pocket of the trousers, and he removed the keys from the pocket, and while doing so he noticed the body moved up and down, indicating Willson was not dead.Carter took the keys to the automobile, and he and the defendant and the two children got into the car, where the defendant said: ‘Linden, what did you shoot daddy for,’ and he replied ‘I didn't shoot daddy.You shot daddy and I am going to shoot you.’The boy Linden was about three years of age, and this conversation took place some ten minutes after Lindy Carter had arrived at the house.They immediately got into the car and drove down the road to where they overtook the father of Lindy Carter, Herschel Carter, and another man, and the defendant there said: ‘Herschel, Linden shot his daddy, and I believe he killed him.What in the world can I do?’And he replied ‘We will go down there.’And when he came to the house he found the shotgun lying substantially as testified to by his son.The defendant asked him twice if the deceased was still alive, and said we had better take him to the hospital, and Herschel replied, ‘Hell, Lois, this man cannot be moved;’ and he died a few moments later.

Substantially the same remarks were made by the defendant to the coroner when she said Linden Lee Shot him, and the little boy said ‘No, mamma, you shot daddy.’Lindy Carter also testified that while they were driving down the road to overtake his father, the defendant said ‘We have been having hell but it's all over now.’Mrs. Holman, who had visited the Willsons the day before, said that the defendant asked her ‘if Jennings or Leon was to get killed, would you bury them in their old suit or buy them a new one?’This conversation grew out of the fact that they were looking at some pictures, and among them was the picture of a corpse, which the defendant thought should not have been taken.

The foregoing is the substance of the actual testimony connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime.The evidence shows that they were living in a small house, and the furniture and equipment indicated they were very poor.They had these two small children, and the husband worked in the oil fields or on the small farm on which they resided.The remarks of the defendant indicated she believed that the coroner and the State's Attorney were attempting to influence the remarks of the little boy, and the coroner admits that he was feeding him candy or gum.

The People also conducted some experiments to ascertain whether the boy Linden Lee could cock the gun by pulling back its hammer.No preliminary foundation was laid to show similar surrounding circumstances, but the testimony does show that while the boy could not cock the gun, he could readily pull the trigger.The People also conducted experiments to show how far the gun would recoil when lying on the ground and fired, but there was no testimony offered to show the gun had been laid on the floor of the house, and in addition the evidence shows a string was tied to the trigger and pulled, which would naturally give the gun an impetus in the direction of the recoil.These experiments were undoubtedly for the purpose of showing inability of the child Linden Lee to discharge the gun and accidentally kill his father.There is no proof whatever as to where the gun was located; whether it was on a rack, or standing, or was on the floor; whether it was cocked or uncocked, or any circumstances whatever to show whether or not it was accessible to the activities of the child.

All of the evidence pertaining to the statements made by the child were objected to by the defendant in the general motion made to direct a verdict in her favor.The above and foregoing is all of the testimony in the case tending to prove the guilt of the defendant, other than the fact that she had the opportunity by living in the same house with the deceased.

The plaintiff in error claims the court committed error in refusing to exclude, at the close of all the testimony, all of the remarks or statements of this child of tender years, and the People opposed this motion by saying it should have been made at the time it first appeared in the record in the case.

It is not necessary for us to pass upon this particular error as it is well settled that this court may review all of the evidence to determine whether it shows the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and where the record leaves this court with a grave and substantial doubt of the guilt of the defendantwe will reverse the judgment.People v. Bradley, 375 Ill. 182, 30 N.E.2d 636;People v. Logan, 358 Ill. 64, 192 N.E. 675;People v. Shack, 396 Ill. 285, 71 N.E.2d 633.The People do not indicate upon what ground they considered the statements made by a three-year-old child competent or proper evendence upon which to convict a person of murder.As a matter of fact the child was not offered as a witness, but his remarks to others were the principal testimony, and, in fact, almost the sole testimony upon which the defendant was convicted.The People apparently rely upon the theory that there was an accusation made by the child against its mother, and that her failure to categorically deny said statements constituted an admission of guilt.Such position is not borne out by the facts.If considered in the nature of an accusation, the mother made the accusation, and the answer of the child was in denial of this charge.The evidence shows the mother in the presence of two or three other witnesses made the assertion that she thought Linden Lee killed his father.Certainly when a charge is made by a defendant that another individual did the killing, and such other person would answer with a countercharge, no admission, expressed or implied, could be attributed to either from such a conversation, because the very fact they are charging each other separately excludes implication of an admission in any respect.We have called attention several times to the caution with which such testimony should be admitted, and the scrutiny which should be given to it by a jury.In People v. Schallman, 273 Ill. 564, 113 N.E. 113, 116, in passing upon this question we said: ‘Where the incriminating statements or accusations are denied in toto by the accused, there can be no implied admission of his guilt, and such statements are wholly inadmissible against him.’Here, the accusation is made by the defendant, and the answer to such accusation is claimed by the People to constitute an accusation of a character that must be specifically denied.We find no law to support this position.

In People v. Sarney, 351 Ill. 428, 184 N.E. 612, 614, referring to such implied admissions, we said: ‘Unless the words or conduct of the accused under the circumstances are such that it is a natural and reasonable inference that he admitted the truth of the charge such statement is inadmissible.’None of the other witnesses testified to any incriminating statement or admission by the defendant, and the consensus of all of them is to the effect that she made the accusation and the three-year-old child answered as indicated above.We think that the proof of the statement in this record wholly failed to prove any admission of guilt upon the part of the defendant.

Very little evidence of motive appears in the case.While it is true that motive is not necessary to convict one accused of murder, still it is an important circumstance in determining the guilt of the defendant, where the evidence is entirely circumstantial.The People refer to the statement ‘We have been having hell but it's all over now.’The statement, alone and by itself, does not establish, nor tend to establish, any motive for murder.

Attention is also called to the fact that the boy ...