Wacaser v. People
| Decision Date | 01 November 1890 |
| Citation | 134 Ill. 438,25 N.E. 564 |
| Parties | WACASER v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Champaign county; C. B. SMITH, Judge.
John R. Eden, Francis M. Wright, and M. W. Mathews, for plaintiff in error.
George Hunt, Atty. Gen., and John E. Jennings, State's Atty., ( Horace S. Clark, of counsel,) for defendant in error.
At the November term, 1888, of the circuit court of Moultrie county, the plaintiff in error, Frank W. Wacaser, and one Owen M. Babb, were indicted for the murder of John B. Cline in said county, on May, 17, 1888. A trial was had at the April term, 1889, of said court, which resulted in a verdict of not guilty as to Babb, and a disagreement of the jury as to the plaintiff in error. Afterwards, in June, 1889, the cause was removed by change of venue to the circuit court of Champaign county, where a second trial was had in November, 1889, and, by the verdict of the jury, the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter, and his punishment fixed at 25 years in the penitentiary. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict, after the overruling of motions for new trial, and in arrest of judgment.
In the neighborhood where the farms of these parties were located the public road runs north and south. Wacaser lived on the east side of the road. North of him, and on the west side of the road, lived Bryan, a brother-in-law of Cline, while still further to the north lived Cline, the deceased. North of his house, and in the north-east corner of his farm, Bryan had a pasture, containing 10 acres, inclosed by a board fence on the north, and by a board and wire fence on the west. Wacaser had rented, and planted in corn, some land belonging to his father, and lying north of Bryan; and he also owned some land to the west of Bryan. The land of Bryan lying west of his pasture had been recently plowed. Westward from the public road, and along the fence on the north side of Bryan's pasture, runs a ‘turning row,’ which is wholly upon the land belonging to Wacaser, or rented by him from his father. Prior to the homicide, there had been some dispute between Bryan or Cline and Wacaser as to the boundary line between the Wacaser land and the Bryan land. Plaintiff in error had expressed his unwillingness that Cline should go upon his land. He seems to have claimed that Bryan's north fence was upon his land, and there is something in the evidence to the effect that he had once had Bryan indicted. Early on the morning of May 17, 1888, plaintiff in error sent three men to work in his field lying west of Bryan's pasture. Shortly afterwards, he himself started in a wagon with his hired man, named Babb, and a boy about 15 years old, named Cunningham, to go to the same field, for the purpose of planting potatoes. He traveled northward on the public road until he reached the north-east corner of Bryan's pasture, then turned from the public road into the turning row, and drove westward, along the turning row, until he had reached a point about 75 or 100 yeards west of the north-west corner of Bryan's inclosure. Here he looked back, and saw the deceased driving a team, behind which he was walking, from the public road into the turning row. He hallooed to Cline, and motioned to him to go southward on the public road, but Cline turned into the turning row, and drove westward. Plaintiff in error then gave the reins to Cunningham,jumped out of the wagon, remarking, ‘There comes a man I don't want to cross my land,’ and went eastward towards the deceased. The latter, in the mean time, turned his team southward upon Bryan's land, and along the west fence of Bryan's pasture, and, throwing the lines over the second or third post of the fence, returned to meet Wacaser. A fracas then occurred between the two men near the north-west corner of the pasture in the turning row, or a few feet south of it, and near the west fence of the inclosure. During the fracas, the plaintiff in error stabbed Cline with a knife or dirk. The deceased went through the fence into the pasture, and, while going south-east, towards Bryan's house, fell upon the ground, and died before reaching the house.
We forbear entering into a detailed discussion of the evidence, as the case must be reversed, and sent back for another trial, for the reasons hereinafter stated. It was sought, upon the trial below, to justify the homicide upon the ground of self-defense. It is claimed, upon the part of the defendant, that the fatal blow was given under circumstances sufficient to create in his mind a well-grounded belief that he was in danger of losing his life, or suffering great bodily harm. It was for the jury to say whether or not the theory of self-defense was established; but it was important, under the circumstances of the case as disclosed by the record, that they should be accurately instructed. The defendant asked the trial court to give 20 instructions, all of which were refused. The trial judge then, of his own motion, gave and read to the jury an instruction written and prepared by himself. No instructions seem to have been asked by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank v. United States
...of establishing self-defense by at least a preponderance of the evidence. As was stated by the court in Wacaser v. People, 134 Ill. 438, 25 N. E. 564, 565, 23 Am. St. Rep. 683, such instruction requires even more than a preponderance of the evidence. The court there "In Herrick v. Gary, 83 ......
-
State v. Hazlet
...N.W. 101; Copps v. State, 97 N.W. 210; Lillianthol Tobacco Co. v. U.S. 97 U.S. 266, 24 L.Ed. 901; Boykin v. People, 45 P. 419; Wascaser v. People, 25 N.E. 564. court should have charged that the defendant should not be convicted if upon the whole case, the jury entertained a reasonable doub......
-
Miller v. People
... ... Conkwright v. People, 35 Ill. 204;Comfort v. People, 54 Ill. 404;Hoge v. People, 117 Ill. 35, 6 N. E. 796;Briggs v. People, 219 Ill. 330, 76 N. E. 499; Watts v. People, supra. See, also, Appleton v. People, 171 Ill. 473, 49 N. E. 708;Wacaser v. People, 134 Ill. 438, 25 N. E. 564,23 Am. St. Rep. 683;Alexander v. People, 96 Ill. 96. The theory of the state as to the time when the plaintiff in error[229 Ill. 385]obtained possession of the buggy was strenuously denied by him, and evidence was introduced in support of this denial ... ...
-
Boykin v. People
... ... 423.] ... is not required to satisfy the jury of anything. If the ... evidence, though it fall short of producing satisfaction, ... raises a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, he is ... entitled to an acquittal. Babcock v. People, supra; Alexander ... v. People, 96 Ill. 96; Wacaser v. People, 134 Ill. 438, 25 ... N.E. 564 ... Instructions ... numbered 17 and 18 in effect state that, if the necessity for ... the killing was brought about by the wrongful act of the ... defendant, he cannot justify or excuse himself on the ground ... of such necessity. In a ... ...