Williams v. People

• Decision Date: 03 April 1897
• Citation: 46 N.E. 749,166 Ill. 132
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

166 Ill. 132

46 N.E. 749

WILLIAMS

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 3, 1897.

Error to circuit court, Rock Island county; John J. Gliem, Judge.

Ed. Williams, alias Ed. Shevlin, was convicted of an assault with an intent to rob, and brings error. Affirmed.

R. Wade and J. Beardsley, for plaintiff in error.

C. J. Searle, State's Atty.

PER CURIAM.

This was an indictment in Rock Island county against Ed. Williams (alias Ed. Shevline), John Rice (alias Thomas Duffy), for an assault upon one Charles C. Walker, on the 17th day of June, 1896, ‘With intent, unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously, to steal, from the person of the said Charles C. Walker, one diamond shirt stud, of the value of three hundred ($300) dollars, the goods and chattels and personal property of the Charles C. Walker.’ On a trial of the cause, the jury found each of the defendants guilty as charged in the indictment, but they found that defendant Williams was only 19 years old when the offense was committed. Upon a return of the verdict, the court entered a judgment sentencing John Rice (alias Thomas Clark) and James Wilson (alias Thomas Duffy) to the penitentiary of the state at Joliet, and Ed. Williams (alias Ed. Shevlin) to the Illinois State Reformatory at Pontiac, Ill. The defendant Williams, and he alone, sued out this writ of error.

It appears from the record that on the 17th day of June, 1896, Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show exhibited in Rock Island. The defendants and one Minnie Daly, who were known as noted pickpockets and thieves, followed the show to Rock Island. It also appears that all the defendants named in the indictment had associated themselves together in the furtherance of a common purpose to steal and pick pockets, and on the day named, in a dense crowd of people, on the streets of Rock Island, they attempted to rob one Charles C. Walker of a valuable diamond shirt stud. We shall not stop to discuss the evidence introduced on the trial, but upon an examination it will be found ample to sustain the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court. Evidence was introduced in behalf of the people tending to prove that the defendants named in the indictment, with other notorious thieves and pickpockets, came to Rock Island on the day of the show, acting in concert and with a common purpose, to steal and pick pockets when and where an opportunity was presented; that they acted under the leadership of one Minnie Daly, who was notorious in that line of business; that they were all at Ottawa on the day the show exhibited there, on the 16th of June, and followed the show from there to Rock Island, on the next day.

It is, however, contended that the court erred in the admission of evidence which as is contended tended to prove the commission of crimes other and different from the one charged in the indictment. As a general rule, where a person is indicted for one offense, evidence of another and a different offense is not admissible; but there are exceptions to the rule. In the discussion of the question in Roscoe's Criminal Evidence (section 90), the author says: ‘The notion that it is itself an objection to the admission of evidence that it discloses other offenses, especially when they are the subject of indictment, is now exploded. If the evidence is admissible on general grounds, it cannot be excluded on this ground.’ See, also, State v. Folwell, 14 Kan. 105; Whart. Cr. Ev. § 32. In Farris v. People, 129 Ill. 529, 21 N. E. 822, where the question arose, it was said: ‘It is conceded that the mere fact that the testimony may tend to prove other crimes, and establish collateral facts, does not necessarily render it incompetent, provided it is pertinent to the point in issue, and tends to prove the crime charged; but the general rule is against receiving evidence of another offense, and no authority can be found to justify its admission, unless it clearly appears that such evidence tends in some way to prove that accused guilty of the crime for which he is on trial.’ It seems to be well settled that, where the offered evidence tends to prove the charge in the indictment, the mere fact that it may tend to prove another crime does not make it inadmissible. If, however, the offered evidence only tends to prove...