People v. Witte

• Decision Date: 23 December 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21578.,21578.
• Citation: 350 Ill. 558,183 N.E. 622
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WITTE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

350 Ill. 558

183 N.E. 622

PEOPLE

v.WITTE.

No. 21578.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 23, 1932.

Error to Circuit Court, Stephenson County; Harry L. Heer, Judge.

Vera Witte was convicted of murder, and she brings error.

Judgment affirmed.Reuben R. Tiffany and John J. Britt, both of Freeport, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Louis F. Reinhold, of Freehold, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield, for the People.

ORR. J.

By the verdict of a jury in the circuit court of Stephenson county, Vera Witte, the plaintiff in error (herein called the defendant), was found guilty of murdering her husband, William Witte, and sentenced to life imprisonment. After motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, the trial court sentenced her to the State Reformatory for Women at Dwight for the term of her natural life. A reversal of the action of the trial court is sought by this writ of error.

The homicide for which the defendant was convicted occurred near the southwest corner of the courthouse square in the city of Freeport during the afternoon of June 9, 1931. At that time the defendant and her husband had been married a little over one year, he being about forty-six years old and she twenty years his junior. Both had been employed by the Illinois Central Railroad Company, she in the Freeport office and he as a locomotive engineer on a run out of that city. It was in the course of this employment that they became acquainted. Witte's first wife died in April, 1928, leaving him with two grown children. In May, 1929, Witte started keeping company with the defendant and they occasionally took trips together to various places. In May, 1930, they were secretly married, the idea of secrecy originating with the defendant, although it was agreeable, also, to Witte. They continued to live apart in Freeport, keeping their respective employments, until August, 1930, when their marriage became publicly known. After their marriage, and before they started living together, Witte borrowed $290 from the defendant, which she obtained by a loan upon a life insurance policy. This loan was never repaid. After August, 1930, the household comprised the husband and wife and the twenty-two year old son and twenty-one year old daughter of Witte. The defendant brought some of her own house furnishings with her to the new home. In October, 1930, she and Witte quarreled, Witte telling her that she must divorce him. This she refused to do, and in the ensuing argument she slapped Witte and he also struck her. That night she took seven sedative tablets in order to induce sleep. In the morning she became very sick and fell downstairs while calling to Witte to come to her help. The fall rendered her unconscious and impaired her eyesight for several days. On October 16, 1930, Witte filed his petition in the county court of Stephenson county alleging the defendant to be insane. Following a hearing before a commission of physicians she was adjudged insane and committed to the East Moline State Hospital. Witte accompanied her to the hospital, where she remained until November 3, 1930, when she was discharged from the institution as cured. The records of the county court which committed her show her discharge as cured and that she was restored to all of her legal rights. Before bringing her home from the hospital Witte tried to get her to agree to divorce him, but this she refused to do. Upon returning home she resided with her husband until December 9, 1930. The day previous the two had entered into a written agreement which could be nullified with the consent of both. By this agreement the parties were to live apart, the defendant not to molest Witte, who was to provide her with certain necessities and in addition pay her $20 every two weeks. Four payments were made under this agreement. While visiting in St. Paul, the defendant received a letter from Witte on February 1, 1931, wherein he reiterated his desire that she divorce him, concluding this with: ‘If you push me too far I will use a gun and end some of my troubles.’ On February 17, 1931, she was served with a summons in a divorce action instituted by Witte, alleging that she had been guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty towards him. The case was heard by a jury, which found that the allegations of the bill were not sustained by the evidence. On May 18, 1931, the defendant filed her bill in the circuit court asking for separate maintenance upon ground of cruelty. On June 9, 1931, this case was heard by the circuit judge of Stephenson county without a jury. The court found for Witte, who had contested the action. At the conclusion of the case the defendant had a talk with the judge who had presided at the trial. From this conversation she drew the wholly unwarranted conclusion that the judge told her that she must go back to Witte and live with him. Departing from the courthouse she met Witte, and told him, in effect, that she would be back with him in a few days. She then, in company with a Miss Kenyon, took her mother and stepfather home in her car. While at the house she went inside for a very short time, and upon returning to her car she and Miss Kenyon drove downtown to the courthouse square. There the defendant parked her car on the south side of Stephenson street so that it faced east and was across the street from the drinking fountains which are located on the southeast corner of the courthouse square. The return to town was to keep an appointment with her attorney, whose office was in a building on the southwest corner of Stephenson street and Galena avenue. She saw Witte standing by the drinking fountains before she got out of her car and she and Miss Kenyon conversed about him. Witte then walked west on the north side of Stephenson street to a position near a traffic light-post on the southwest corner of the courthouse square and approximately opposite a soldier's monument which is located in the southwest corner of the courthouse yard. The defendant walked west on the south side of Stephenson street, saw Witte near the light-post, and crossed the street to him. When she crossed Stephenson street she carried in her hands a soft felt hat, an envelope, and a hand bag. According to her testimony she stepped on the curb and started a conversation with Witte by saying, ‘Well, Bill, congratulations; you won,’ and then asked him when it would be convenient for her to come back. She said he informed her that she was not coming back. She then related to him her version of what the trial judge had told her about her going back to her husband. Witte, she said, then cursed the courts and said, ‘If they will not keep you away this will.’ She said that she then felt a pressure about the center of her chest, as she was then only about a foot and a half away from Witte. On looking down she said she saw the barrel of a revolver; that she immediately grasped his arm with her right hand, stepping forward at the same time in an endeavor to grasp hold of the revolver with her left hand. She was positive that she held her purse suspended from the left hand or wrist at this time, and was of the opinion, also, that her hat was held in her left hand at the time. When she reached for the revolver she said it was discharged and Witte fell against her, causing her to lose her balance and fall to the walk on her left knee. She felt a severe pain in that knee and thought she was shot. Looking down as she fell she testified that she saw a revolver fall out of her hat. What happened after that she said she did not remember, although she said that she heard expressionsof: ‘Murder,’ ‘She has killed him,’ and ‘She shot her husband.’ She recalled walking across the street with some one, but said she did not fully regain her memory until she was in the county jail. She denied having any malice toward Witte, and also denied the ownership or possession of a revolver at the time of the killing.

Elmer Prall, a real estate agent, who was acquainted with the defendant, saw her come west on the south side of Stephenson street, walk past him, then turn north and cross Stephenson street, step up on the curb, turn east and confront Witte from a distance of about three feet. Prall thereupon heard a shot, saw Witte stagger, walk forward, following a circular route for some fifteen or eighteen feet to the west side of the monument, where he fell. Prall did not see who fired the first shot, as the hands of the defendant were covered by a hat, but he did see her raise both hands as she faced Witte. According to Prall she approached the prostrate form of Witte with her hat in one hand and a revolver in the other and fired two shots at him and made an unsuccessful attempt to fire still another shot. After the first shot Prall said that her foot seemed to slip on the curbing and she appeared to drop down on one knee.

William Pfile was seated on a nearby bench and noticed Witte standing by the traffic light-post. He saw the defendant coming across Stephenson street toward Witte, having in her hand what he took to be a hat; her hands appearing to be together. She stepped up on the walk and talked to Witte a moment or so, the two being not over a couple of feet apart. Pfile was looking at Witte and the defendant as the first shot was fired. According to Pfile she did not fall down after the first shot but walked around some. The next two shots were fired right after the first and before Witte staggered and fell. Witness said he was close to the couple-within about eight feet-but he could not hear their remarks, due to his impaired hearing.

William Mitchell was occupying a park bench and saw Witte by the traffic light-post. He first saw the defendant when she was about halfway across Stephenson street, coming toward him. She walked up to Witte. Witness then looked away, and after an interval, which was not very long, he heard a shot. He saw Witte lying on the west curb of the monument but did...