{ "id": 1578930, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosea L. Haynes, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Haynes", "decision_date": "1970-04-22", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 53,647", "first_page": "91", "last_page": "95", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "124 Ill. App. 2d 91" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "253 NE2d 617", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 Ill App2d 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1587065 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/116/0157-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 NE2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 Ill App2d 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1592979 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/111/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 NE2d 150", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 Ill App2d 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2477173 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/97/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 NE2d 739", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Ill2d 104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5361740 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0104-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 NE2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 Ill App2d 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2897622 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "400, 401" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/90/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 NE2d 193", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill2d 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2822807 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/29/0384-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 421, "char_count": 5962, "ocr_confidence": 0.61, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.46765605076141e-08, "percentile": 0.2798456589554063 }, "sha256": "e265c61aa6870e669a9c513ac21ec06a7732337013183357f850362e8eeab96b", "simhash": "1:8a2cdfecd424ea4a", "word_count": 1016 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:07.974938+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosea L. Haynes, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE LEIGHTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nA three-count indictment charged defendant with aggravated battery, aggravated battery with a gun and attempt to murder. After a bench trial, the court found him guilty of attempt to murder and sentenced him to serve six to fifteen years. In this appeal the sole issue is whether defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\nEvidence of the prosecution tended to show that on November 22, 1967, between 2:00 and 2:15 a. m., Mrs. Maxine Haynes was watching television in her home. She testified that \u201c[M]y husband (the defendant) broke in the house and shot me . . . above my heart, in my arm, back of my hip . . . and my leg, my left leg. . . .\u201d After the four shots, defendant ran out of the apartment. Mrs. Haynes said that she went to the first floor of the building, and told a lady there that she had been shot. A call was made to the Chicago police. Officer John Dub responded and found Mrs. Haynes on the kitchen floor of the first-floor apartment. She was taken to a hospital where she remained \u201c[A] little over a week . . . .\u201d The next day defendant surrendered to the police at a station where he was questioned and processed by Officer William Boyd.\nDefendant had a different version of what occurred. He testified that because November 22 was two days before Thanksgiving, he went to Mrs. Haynes\u2019 apartment at about 6:30 or 7:00 p. m. with a 21-pound turkey. He asked, and obtained permission to take their three children and Mrs. Haynes\u2019 eight-year-old daughter for a ride. He returned to the apartment with the children at about 10:30. This time defendant brought with him a six-pack of beer and a pint of whiskey. Defendant said that the children were put to bed and he and Mrs. Haynes first drank the beer and then turned to the whiskey. Sometime during the drinks defendant asked Mrs. Haynes \u201c [a] bout us getting back together, . . . .\u201d This started an argument. Mrs. Haynes called defendant an obscene name and then came at him with a butcher knife which he caught with his hand, making a deep cut \u201c[t]o the bone. Every time I move you could see something white. . . .\u201d Defendant testified that he had with him a gun he got \u201cfrom a friend.\u201d He said that after he tripped and fell, he shot Mrs. Haynes the first time. When this did not stop the attack, he fired three more shots and ran out of the apartment.\nOn cross-examination defendant admitted that although he was seriously cut, he never saw a doctor, went anywhere for medical care nor complained to anyone about his injury. Defendant said that he called the building where his former wife lived and a woman told him that the police were looking for him. He went to a police station later in the day and surrendered to Officer William Boyd. Boyd testified in rebuttal that when he saw the defendant, there was no bandage or cut on defendant\u2019s hand; nor did the defendant complain of any injury. After hearing the witnesses, the trial judge found the defendant guilty of attempt to murder his former wife.\nDefendant contends that his testimony of the attack on him by Mrs. Haynes injected into the case the element of self-defense; and that because of this defense, the State did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To support this argument defendant points to what he calls inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in Mrs. Haynes\u2019 testimony. For example, defendant argues that Mrs. Haynes testified \u201c[h]e broke the door plumb off and comie on in . . .\u201d her apartment and fired four shots without saying a word. Inferring a lack of corroboration, defendant calls attention to policemen who came to the Haynes\u2019 apartment but did not see any broken door nor any sign of a breaking in.\nDefendant\u2019s argument is without merit. It is immaterial whether he was invited in or broke into the apartment of his former wife. Defendant was charged with aggravated battery and with attempt to murder. The gravamen of these offenses was shooting Maxine Haynes. Mrs. Haynes testified that in the early morning hours of November 22, 1967, defendant shot her four times. Defendant admits he did, but interposes the defense that he shot Mrs. Haynes because she attacked him.\nThis was an affirmative defense. Unless the State\u2019s evidence raised an issue concerning the alleged defense, defendant had to present some evidence in support of such a claim. People v. Slaughter, 29 Ill2d 384, 194 NE2d 193; People v. Garcia, 90 Ill App2d 396, 400, 401, 232 NE2d 810. This he did, thus requiring the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had not acted in self-defense, Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 38, \u00a7\u00a7 7\u2014 14 and 3-2. Whether defendant was justified in using force in self-defense was a question of fact to be determined by the trial judge from all the circumstances shown by the evidence. People v. Washington, 27 Ill2d 104, 187 NE2d 739; People v. Brumbeloe, 97 Ill App2d 370, 240 NE2d 150. The trial judge heard Mrs. Haynes and defendant give their respective versions of the occurrence. He attached to the testimony of each the credibility he thought it deserved. He concluded that the believable evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of attempt to murder his former wife. We see no reason to interfere with this judgment. People v. Thome, 111 Ill App2d 215, 250 NE2d 9; People v. Hill, 116 Ill App2d 157, 253 NE2d 617. Judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nDRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE LEIGHTON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Shelvin Singer and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.", "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and John R. McClory, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosea L. Haynes, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 53,647.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nApril 22, 1970.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Shelvin Singer and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and John R. McClory, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0091-01", "first_page_order": 97, "last_page_order": 101 }