{ "id": 2545487, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter D. Justice, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Justice", "decision_date": "1967-12-14", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 51,615", "first_page": "189", "last_page": "192", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "89 Ill. App. 2d 189" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "222 NE2d 268", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "76 Ill App2d 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2576575, 2577095 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/76/0310-02", "/ill-app-2d/76/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 US 528", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1765184 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/372/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 NE2d 729", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Ill2d 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2840300 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/32/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 NE2d 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill2d 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2833332 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 US 719", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12047240 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 US 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 US 478", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6166688 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/378/0478-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 357, "char_count": 4623, "ocr_confidence": 0.604, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08200439485081949 }, "sha256": "4c31bbc92d0a281d8353bcad1fe6ed780910fe9cb21a51de677ad9c7d5fe28d7", "simhash": "1:863238c76f9a27f3", "word_count": 756 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:45:09.383712+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter D. Justice, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE ADESKO\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant was indicted for murder. In a jury trial he was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 4 to 15 years in the Illinois Penitentiary. He prosecutes this appeal contending that his statement to a police officer was improperly admitted in evidence and that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\nDefendant and several others were enjoying an afternoon of watching the football games on television followed by a poker game. Marshall Williams and another player became embroiled in an argument as to who had won a particular hand. Defendant injected himself in the argument and attempted to reach into a drawer for a copy of Hoyle. According to defendant\u2019s testimony, Williams slammed the drawer on his hand causing it to bleed. Williams became very abusive and was throwing furniture around, so defendant went into his bedroom and emerged with a loaded rifle. He further testified that, Miss Young, who had come to the apartment to pick up Williams, was pushed against him and Williams then grabbed him from behind. The rifle discharged and Williams was killed. Defendant claimed he did not aim at Williams, nor did he know the gun was loaded.\nMiss Young testified that she did not hear Williams threaten defendant. On the contrary, Williams left the apartment before defendant emerged from his bedroom with the rifle. Defendant struck Miss Young and she screamed. Williams returned to the apartment and defendant aimed the rifle at him and fired.\nThe other card player also testified that Williams did not threaten defendant. During the dispute at the card game, defendant told Williams to \u201clearn to play cards.\u201d Williams told defendant to \u201cshut up,\u201d to which defendant responded, \u201cyou don\u2019t tell me to shut up in my house.\u201d Defendant then went to his bedroom to get the rifle.\nAfter the shooting, the police were summoned. The investigating officer related his conversation with defendant at that time, in which defendant admitted shooting Williams after Williams attempted to tear up his house. Defendant fired the shot to protect his home.\nDefendant argues that the police officer\u2019s testimony should not have been admitted because the policeman did not first advise defendant of his right to an attorney. Defendant relies on Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 (1964) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). Miranda is not applicable to the instant case because the entire proceedings were completed prior to June 13, 1966. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 US 719 (1966). Escobedo is also inapplicable, it being limited to the peculiar facts of the case. People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill2d 375, 202 NE2d 33 (1964); People v. Kees, 32 Ill2d 299, 205 NE2d 729 (1965) .\nThe case of Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 US 528 (1963) is also cited by defendant. In Lynumn three police officers obtained an oral confession from the defendant after telling her she would get ten years and her children would be taken away and strangers would have them. The police said they would recommend leniency if she would confess. There is no hint in the instant case of any police harassment or intimidation. We find nothing in the testimony that in any way shows defendant\u2019s statement to the police was anything but voluntary.\nThe other point raised by defendant is that the conflicting testimony should mitigate in his favor and he should be found not guilty. The jury was properly instructed as to whether the homicide of Williams was murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. No error is alleged with respect to these instructions. The rule is well established that credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are matters for the jury. This court will not disturb their verdict unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improper or unsatisfactory to justify our conclusion that there is reasonable doubt of the defendant\u2019s guilt. People v. Bailey, 76 Ill App2d 310, 222 NE2d 268 (1966). We feel there is sufficient evidence, if believed, to prove the charge of voluntary manslaughter.\nFor the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Criminal Division, is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMURPHY, P. J. and BURMAN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE ADESKO" } ], "attorneys": [ "Edward A. Biggs, of Chicago, for appellant.", "John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County (Elmer C. Kissane and Eldridge Hersey, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter D. Justice, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 51,615.\nFirst District, First Division.\nNovember 27, 1967.\nRehearing denied December 14, 1967.\nEdward A. Biggs, of Chicago, for appellant.\nJohn J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County (Elmer C. Kissane and Eldridge Hersey, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0189-01", "first_page_order": 195, "last_page_order": 198 }