guilt of plaintiff error in Illinois

1953In People v. Buckminster, 274 Ill. 435 , counsel for the State argued that even though the evidence was improperly admitted, the guilt of plaintiff in error was so clearly shown by other evidence properly in the record tiiat the admission of the confession, when an instruction of the court strictly limited its effect, was harmless.

1953If from the legal evidence admitted they had any doubt as to the guilt of plaintiff in error, the jury would not find it easy, or perhaps possible, to remove from their minds the impression produced by this confession.” In People v. Evertson, 310 Ill. 397 , a codefendant made a confession of his participation in the crime charged and implicated plaintiff in error.

1942(People v. Serrielle, 354 Ill. 182 ; People v. Nemes, 347 id. 268 ; People v. Fitzgibbons, 343 id. 69.) The State urges that the fact that plaintiff in error fled from the scene of the crime and went to Peoria is a proof of his guilty conscience and tends to corroborate the testimony of the prosecuting witness.

1942(People v. Serrielle, 354 Ill. 182 ; People v. Nemes, 347 id. 268 ; People v. Fitzgibbons, 343 id. 69.) The State urges that the fact that plaintiff in error fled from the scene of the crime and went to Peoria is a proof of his guilty conscience and tends to corroborate the testimony of the prosecuting witness.

1934(People v. Yates, 339 Ill. 421 .) We are not convinced that there is a reasonable doubt of the guilt of plaintiff in error, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

1930(Keller v. People, 204 Ill. 604 ; Cunningham v. People, 210 id. 410.) The evidence in this case is so contradictory and unsatisfactory that, as stated in the opinion of the court in People v. Blanch, supra, “this court will be better satisfied if the question of the guilt of plaintiff in error is presented to another jury.” The judgment of the criminal court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

1930(People v. Deluce, 237 Ill. 541 .) In this case we are not convinced that there is a reasonable doubt of the guilt of plaintiff in error, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

1928(Schoolcraft v. People, 117 Ill. 271 .) The jury were told in other instructions that if they were not satisfied from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the guilt of plaintiff in error they must find him not guilty.

1927(People v. Harvey, 321 Ill. 361 ; People v. Fritz, 320 id. 323; People v. Johnson, 314 id. 486; People v. Fox, 269 id. 300; Cohn v. People, 197 id. 482.) The evidence in this record does not establish the guilt of plaintiff in error beyond a reasonable doubt.

1927(Purdy v. People, 140 Ill. 46 ; Vale v. People, 161 id. 309; People v. McGinnis, 234 id. 68.) But in the case last mentioned, the court, reviewing a like instruction, said, at page 76: “In a case where the evidence of guilt was clear and there was but little, if any, conflict in the evidence and the testimony of the defendant was not vital to his defense, an instruction in the form of the People’s fifteenth instruction might not require a reversal of the judgment of conviction.” In the instant case the evidence of the guilt of plaintiff in error is clear.

1924(People v. Campagna, 240 Ill. 378 , and cases there cited; People v. Ahrling, 279 id. 70.) We cannot say the proof in this case was sufficient to exclude every reasonable doubt of the guilt of plaintiff in error.

1922(Mooney v. People, 111 Ill. 388 ; Campbell v. People, 159 id. 9; Keller v. People, 204 id. 604; People v. Freeland, 284 id. 190; People v. Stoneking, 289 id. 308.) We have read all of the evidence in this record, and after weighing and considering this evidence we entertain a serious doubt of the guilt of plaintiff in error.

1919(People v. Conners, 246 Ill. 9 ; People v. Deluce, 237 id. 541; People v. Lutzow, 240 id. 612.) We do not wish to express any opinion as to the evidence, except to say that in our judgment it is of such a character that the instructions and rulings on legal questions involved on the trial should have been accurate, and that in view of the erroneous rulings on instructions already considered the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in harmony with the views herein expressed.

1917Upon controverted questions of fact courts of review are reluctant to substitute their opinion for that of the jury, and will not do so unless it clearly appears that the jury found contrary to the weight of the evidence, (Parsons v. People, 218 Ill. 386 ; Henry v. People, 198 id. 162; People v. Hubert, 251 id. 514.) It is argued that the only evidence showing the guilt of plaintiff in error was by his accomplices who had pleaded guilty and were let out on probation, and that their evidence should be viewed with suspicion.

1917(People v. Ahrling, 279 Ill. 70 .) We think the evidence in this case as to the corpus delicti and as to the guilt of plaintiff in error is of, such a conclusive nature as to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, that the accused and no one else committed the crime charged.

1913This instruction has been expressly approved in Siebert v. People, 143 Ill. 571 , where conviction was had upon circumstantial evidence, alone.

1909The instruction, however, singles out the testimony of the two witnesses named and in this respect it is erroneous (People v. Campbell, 234 Ill. 391 ), but excluding their testimony the other evidence in the case so conclusively establishes the guilt of plaintiff in error that the instruction could not have operated to his prejudice.