Turley v. People
| Decision Date | 20 February 1901 |
| Parties | TURLEY et al. v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Logan county; John H. Moffett, Judge.
Harrison Turley and Carl Turley were convicted of assault with intent to rob, and they bring error. Reversed.
J. A. Horn and Blinn & Harris, for plaintiffs in error.
E. C. Akin, Atty. Gen., Peter Murphy, State's Atty., and Andrew L. Anderson, for the People.
At the September term, 1900, of the circuit court of Logan county, an indictment of three counts was returned against the plaintiffs in error, charging them jointly with having made an assault on one Henry O. Haynes on August 23d of that year, with the intent to rob him by stealing from his person certain money, charged in one count to be of the sum of $75, and in the other two $70. At the same term of the court they each entered their plea of not guilty, and were tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary. To reverse that judgment of conviction this writ of error has been sued out.
Henry O. Haynes is a farmer living in the village of Lake Fork, in said Logan county, six miles from the city of Mt. Pulaski. Harrison Turley worked on a farm, for a brother-in-law, near the village of Cornland, also in that county, some 10 miles from Mt. Pulaski. The other defendant, Carl Turley, lived with his parents on a farm in Macon county, about 14 miles from Mt. Pulaski. The latter is a nephew of Harrison Turley, being at the time of the alleged assault not quite 21 years of age, while Harrison was 28 years of age. The parties were all in Mt. Pulaski on the 23d day of August. Harrison Turley had known Haynes for several years, and their relations were friendly. He and Haynes were together more or less during that day. Carl Turley did not know Haynes. He and his uncle were together in Mt. Pulaski during that day. Haynes had delivered some oats in the city that morning, and previous thereto, and received about $85 in money for the same; and the evidence shows that he became intoxicated during the forenoon and afternoon, and exhibited at different times considerable money. While in the state of intoxication, he was found in the afternoon, about 4 o'clock, sitting against a fence in an alley back of a saloon, but soon after got the team with which he had brought in a load of oats, and started back to his home. On the road, several miles from Mt. Pulaski, he was found in his wagon in a dazed condition, resulting from a blow upon the head, which appeared to have been inflicted with a club or bludgeon of some kind. A stick of wood-a part of a fence rail in appearance-was found on the road, which some of the witnesses testified had the appearance of blood upon it, and from that point leading off into a cornfield were footprints of a man. The defendants were seen driving on the same road from the city of Mt. Pulaski, and some distance from the place where the assault appeared to have been made one of them had gotten out of the buggy, the other driving the horse. No one saw the assault committed, and Haynes himself could only say, ‘I got a lick just like a flash,’ and knew nothing more for a time. He does not pretend to identify either of the defendants as the person who struck him, nor does the evidence show them to have been near the place where the assault was made, if it was made. Neither was there any evidence tending to identify the tracks leading into the field as being those of either of the defendants. Haynes, when found, stated that some one had struck him, but expressed no opinion as to who did it. The defendants testified in their own behalf, and as to the fact that one of them had gotten out of the buggy on the road said it was to answer a call of nature, and they both testified positively that they did not commit any assault whatever upon Haynes, and knew nothing of it. They put their characters in issue upon the trial, and introduced evidence to the effect that their reputations were good, and there was no evidence to the contrary. When Haynes was found after the assault, he had upon his person $75 in money; also his watch, and an order which Harrison Turley had given him that day on one Kennedy for $2; and it was not claimed by Haynes, or shown by any testimony whatever, that anything which he had upon his person was taken, or in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bickford
... ... separate counts are made use of in so doing, the information ... must clearly show but one offense charged. People v ... Thompson, 28 Cal. 217; People v. Shotwell, 27 ... Cal. 394, 400; People v. Garcia, 58 Cal. 103; ... People v. Quvise, 56 Cal. 396; ... other essential elements of the offense. The verdict must ... respond to the issues submitted to the jury. Turley v ... People, 188 Ill. 628, 59 N.E. 506; Donovan v ... People, 215 Ill. 520, 74 N.E. 772; Mai v ... People, 224 Ill. 414, 79 N.E. 633; ... ...
-
Schultz v. People
...raising an inference or presumption that the prisoner committed the particular act, for which he is on trial.’ See, also, Turley v. People, 188 Ill. 628, 59 N. E. 506. It is not claimed, and could not be, that the foregoing evidence falls within any exception to the general rule, as above s......
-
People v. Kuhn, 12885.
...as charged in the first count of the indictment, and reliance is placed on the cases of Garrity v. People, 70 Ill. 83, and Turley v. People, 188 Ill. 628, 59 N. E. 506, as holding that the manner and form charged in the indictment related only to the assault and did not includethe intent. T......
-
People v. Andrews
...THAT WAS IN THAT _____ place.’ testimony tending to show a willingness to commit other distinct crimes is not admissible. Turely v. People, 188 Ill. 628,59 N. E. 508. The statement attributed to plaintiff in error, however, was made immediately after the stabbing; it would tend to show the ......