{
  "id": 5364650,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Rudolphus Farmer, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Farmer",
  "decision_date": "1963-09-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 37566",
  "first_page": "521",
  "last_page": "525",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 Ill. 2d 521"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 Ill.2d 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2701566
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/4/0414-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ill.2d 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5327943
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/18/0489-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill.2d 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5355915
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/26/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill.2d 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2774181
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/13/0084-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 446,
    "char_count": 6652,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.788,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.747100300032664e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7079316207238338
    },
    "sha256": "1c42d9217ff175ee805dc6f9cbc4854443d58c9885b6da43065a6c9e3b9ea15f",
    "simhash": "1:db00bd73ca150941",
    "word_count": 1134
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:04.677975+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Rudolphus Farmer, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Solfisburg\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a trial by jury in the criminal court of Cook County, the defendant, Rudolphus Farmer, was convicted of the murder of Ray Smith and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for 25 years. He has sued out this writ of error to review the judgment.\nThe facts of the case are essentially undisputed. On the evening of August 14, 1959, defendant went to the apartment of Cleo Williams at her invitation. When he arrived, Ray Smith and Cleo were there with Cleo\u2019s five children. Defendant had been Cleo\u2019s \u201cboy friend\u201d for four years, but Ray was her new \u201cboy friend.\u201d There was no argument, but defendant played with the children for a while, and then left the apartment. He talked to Cleo in the hallway, and said he was going home. When Cleo went in her apartment, defendant was standing at the stairs about 12 feet from her door and Smith was standing by the door with his hands in his pockets. As soon as she got in the apartment she heard defendant say, \u201cDon\u2019t come my way.\u201d She then heard a gun shot and then two or three more shots. After the shooting stopped, she waited- two or three minutes, and opened the door and Smith\u2019s body fell inside. Police investigation revealed three spent Luger cartridges at the scene. Smith\u2019s body was found in the doorway with two bullet wounds which were the cause of death. A search of the deceased revealed no knife or other weapon.\nThe following afternoon defendant surrendered himself to the .police after consulting an attorney. He gave a voluntary oral statement that was later reduced to writing and admitted in evidence without objection. The' statement essentially corroborated the testimony of Cleo. He added that he kept his loaded gun, a German Luger, hidden in Cleo\u2019s apartment. When he went to her apartment, he played with the children and got the gun and placed it in his belt. He was then talking to Cleo in the hall. The deceased came to the door and said, \u201cWhat\u2019s happening out there?\u201d and defendant said, \u201cWhat do you mean? What the hell do you care.\u201d Defendant then made the following statement regarding the actual shooting: \u201cHe had his hand in his pocket and he come up on me. I said, \u2018Get back there. Don\u2019t come up on me.\u2019 And he kept on coming and I took my gun and start shooting. That\u2019s all I would like to answer.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s theory of the case is that the evidence together with the voluntary statement is insufficient to sustain a conviction, and the evidence failed to show either intent or malice beyond a reasonable doubt.\nDefendant relies on the often stated principle that a voluntary confession alone will not sustain a conviction. However, as we stated in People v. Miller, 13 Ill.2d 84, 105: \u201cThe true rule is that although a mere, naked confession, uncorroborated by any circumstances inspiring belief in its truth, is insufficient to convict, the corpus delicti is not required to be proved by evidence aliunde the confession or admissions of the accused. It is not essential that the corpus delicti shall be established by evidence other than that which tends to connect the accused with the crime. The same evidence may be used to prove the existence of the crime and the guilt of the defendant. The test is whether the whole evidence proves the facts that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it.\u201d We think that rule is applicable here. The deceased died of gunshot wounds immediately subsequent to a warning by defendant. No other person was in the hallway. The statement of defendant was substantially corroborated by Cleo Williams and the police investigation. We think it clear that the corpus delicti was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\nIt is undisputed that defendant deliberately shot the deceased who was unarmed. The only claim of justification or provocation is that deceased was approaching him with his hand in his pocket. The record is devoid of any evidence of a threat by deceased, or any act that would arouse an uncontrollable passion., Nor does the record indicate any basis for a claim of self-defense.\nWhile malice is an essential element of the crime of murder, it is well established that malice is implied when all of the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. It is not necessary to justify a conviction of murder that the accused should have deliberately formed an intent to kill. It is sufficient if at the instant of the assault he is actuated by the wanton and reckless disregard for human life that denotes malice. People v. Jones, 26 Ill.2d 381; People v. Jordan, 18 Ill.2d 489.\nThe evidence clearly sustained a conviction of murder. Defendant also seeks a reversal of his conviction on the ground of improper argument of counsel. The remarks objected to followed the observation that defendant consulted an attorney prior to making his voluntary statement. The assistant State\u2019s Attorney argued as follows: \"Now what took place there is something we can only surmise but we can infer. In all probability he discussed with his attorney this question. He went in there and said, T shot k man. What can I do?\u2019 That\u2019s a reasonable inference and I think that he was finally told to give himself up, which he did. But then, they had to come up with something. Something had to be determined, some defense had to be determined, because nobody wants to stand accused of murder without defense whatsoever.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s objection to this line of argument was immediately sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard it. We believe that the prompt ruling of the trial court removed the prejudice that would otherwise have arisen from the argument. This case is unlike People v. Freedman, 4 Ill.2d 414, where objections to repeated suggestions of subornation to perjury by a \u201cclever lawyer\u201d were overruled. Upon the record before us we cannot see how the jury could have reached a different result.\nThe defendant received a fair trial and all elements of the crime of murder were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Solfisburg"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Abrams, Linn and Ness, of Chicago, (Marvin Silverman, appointed by the court, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.",
      "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Edward J. Hladis and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 37566.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Rudolphus Farmer, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed September 27, 1963.\nAbrams, Linn and Ness, of Chicago, (Marvin Silverman, appointed by the court, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Edward J. Hladis and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0521-01",
  "first_page_order": 563,
  "last_page_order": 567
}
