{ "id": 5192477, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Harrison Washington, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Washington", "decision_date": "1927-10-22", "docket_number": "No. 18271", "first_page": "152", "last_page": "158", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "327 Ill. 152" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "292 Ill. 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4981217 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/292/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 Ill. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5175465 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/323/0034-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 515, "char_count": 10468, "ocr_confidence": 0.77, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.157379005918952e-07, "percentile": 0.7693631945337354 }, "sha256": "ddb8c5eda017fd9f4b8cb46118bba22a544c6593d40a714de287b902a3b77547", "simhash": "1:da52811dc8d8c09d", "word_count": 1832 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:09:36.702447+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. Harrison Washington, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Heard\ndelivered the opinion of the court :\nPlaintiff in error, a colored man, was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary, in the circuit court of Morgan county, for the larceny of a Ford Model \u201cT\u201d automobile, engine No. 11,325,336. The record is before this court\" for review upon writ of error.\nJuly 5, 1925, a Ford sedan belonging to Elmer E. Hagler was stolen from in front of a building on the corner of Capitol avenue and Fourth street, in Springfield. Hagler bought the car March 31, 1925. At the time it was assembled it contained a Ford Model \u201cT\u201d automobile engine, No. 11,325,336, but there is no evidence in the record that this particular engine was in the car when it was stolen or what number was then on the engine. In February, 1926, State officials in search of stolen automobiles went to the garage of C. P. Hutson, in Jacksonville, and took therefrom several stolen cars, among them a Ford roadster \u2014 not a sedan. The officials took from the roadster the engine, which bore the number 6,047,453. Upon the application of heat from an acetylene torch it was disclosed that the original engine number, 11,325,336, had been erased and the number 6,047,453 stamped thereon in its place. The next day plaintiff in error was arrested on complaint of Hutson on a warrant charging the larceny of a Ford roadster.\nThe only witnesses in an}*- way tending to connect plaintiff in error with the crime charged were Hutson and Louis Starr, who was then under indictment in the Morgan county circuit court, together with Roy Drendel, for the larceny of an automobile. Hutson testified that he purchased the Ford roadster from plaintiff in error in August, 1925, for $75. His examination revealed the fact that if he did so purchase it the purchase was made under circumstances which would lead any reasonable man to believe that the car was a stolen car and that he was guilty of purchasing stolen property knowing it to be stolen. Starr testified that on July 5, 1925, he went to the residence of Roy Drendel, and not finding him at home went to plaintiff in error\u2019s home; that plaintiff in error told him he would give him $100 if he delivered a car for him at witness\u2019 own door; that they then drove down on Capitol avenue, in Springfield, and saw a man and woman get out of a Ford sedan on Capitol avenue, between Fourth and Fifth streets, and go into the Hagler building; that witness then went over to the Ford sedan and started it, but when he had started it it refused to run, and he went back and told plaintiff in error that he could not get it to. run; that plaintiff in error then went and started the car and drove it to his own garage.\nPlaintiff in error denied that at any time .did he meet Starr and in his company drive around Springfield in search of an automobile and denied that he directed Starr to steal the Ford sedan. \u2022 He denied Starr\u2019s testimony in toto and denied selling the roadster to Hutson. He testified that in addition to running a garage he was a motorcycle racer and gave exhibitions in motorcycle riding at county fairs, picnics and other gatherings; that on June 30, 1925, he left Springfield for Detroit, Michigan, where he raced on July 4, 1925, and did not return to Springfield until the 14th or 15th of July. Plaintiff in error\u2019s testimony was corroborated by two colored men, who testified to accompanying him to Detroit on the trip and returning with him, and also by a brother, who testified that from the first of July, 1925, until the 16th he looked after plaintiff in error\u2019s garage and that plaintiff in error was not there at that time. This witness was asked the question, \u201cWas Washington in Springfield at his garage during the time you just mentioned?\u201d to which the witness replied, \u201cNo, sir.\u201d This answer was stricken out on motion of the State\u2019s attorney, the court saying, \u201cMotion allowed; if he was where this witness was he may testify.\u201d He was also corroborated in his alibi by his sister-in-law, who testified that she went to plaintiff in error\u2019s home on the 30th of June, 1925, and remained there until about the 15th, and that the occasion of her staying there was on account of Washington\u2019s going to Detroit to race and witness went out there to stay with her sister. Another witness testified that on July 1, 1925, he called at Washington\u2019s home to see if he could get him to take part in some races at the fair ground on August 4 and that he could not find him.\nWhile there are some contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of plaintiff in error\u2019s witnesses, no witness was called by the State, other than Starr, to prove plaintiff in error\u2019s presence in Springfield at any time between June 30 and July 15, 1925. There were inherent improbabilities in Starr\u2019s testimony, and his testimony and that of Hutson was open to the suspicion that they were trying to curry favor with the officials and so fend off prosecution from themselves. Under this state of the testimony it is our duty, before an affirmance, to scrutinize the record carefully to see that it does not contain error which possibly may have prejudiced the jury in their finding against the defendant.\nWhile plaintiff in error testified to leaving Springfield for Detroit on June 30, 1925, and being in Detroit all the time until about July 14 or 15, during his extended cross-examination he at one time stated that between the first day of June and the 15th he was in Detroit. On re-direct examination his attorney asked him the question: \u201cIf you stated in answer to the State\u2019s attorney that you left in June \u2014 the first of June \u2014 and was in Detroit during \u2014 up to the 15th of June \u2014 is that correct ?\u201d and also, \u201cWere you in Detroit at any time in the first part of June?\u201d to both of which questions the State\u2019s attorney\u2019s general objection was sustained by the court. If the witness in his cross-examination inadvertently used the word \u201cJune\u201d instead of \u201cJuly\u201d he should have been given the opportunity to correct the mistake.\nPlaintiff in error testified that at his home he had a conversation with Hutson four or five days after he was arrested, at which Abe Love was present. He was then asked by his attorney, \u201cDirecting your attention to the first conversation there at your house, did Mr. Hutson say this, or this in substance: That he was sorry he got you mixed up in this automobile matter, and that the only reason he did it was that you were not a resident of Morgan county and that he thought it might be all right?\u201d Although foundation for this question had been laid by interrogating Hutson with reference thereto on his cross-examination, the court sustained the State\u2019s attorney\u2019s general objection and said, \u201cThe objection is sustained; I don\u2019t see how it is material whether he did have any conversation at any time.\u201d This statement of the court was not only error, but it may have been very prejudicial in leading the jury to believe that the testimony of plaintiff in error and another witness to the effect that at the aviation field on Easter Sunday Hutson said to plaintiff in error, \u201cI am sorry that I got you into this deal, and if you will say you sold me a Eord roadster I will pay you $50,\u201d was likewise not material. The court also erred in refusing to admit in evidence a letter written by Starr to plaintiff in error March 9, 1926, containing a threat with reference to May, at which time this case was expected to be tried.\nAt the request of the State\u2019s attorney the court gave to the jury the following instruction:\n\u201cThe court instructs the jury that it is competent to convict upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, if the jury, weighing the truthfulness of his testimony, think him worthy of belief, taking into consideration whether or not he has been corroborated by other credible witnesses, or facts and circumstances appearing upon the trial, if any, which tend to corroborate his testimony, provided the evidence taken all together proves the guilt of the defendant as charged beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d\nThis instruction contains a contradiction. If the testimony of the accomplice was uncorroborated he could not have been corroborated, by other credible witnesses or by facts and circumstances appearing on the trial. The jury might be misled into thinking that the court must have considered that the testimony of the accomplice in this case had been corroborated by other credible witnesses or by facts and circumstances appearing on the trial. This instruction should not have been given. People v. Andreanos, 323 Ill. 34.\nThe court also instructed the jury:\n\u201cYou are not bound to believe anything to be a fact because a witness has stated it to be so, provided you believe from all the evidence or lack of evidence that such witness was mistaken or has knowingly testified falsely.\u201d\nIt is the insufficiency or lack of evidence offered by the People to prove guilt which creates a reasonable doubt, but it is a different proposition to say that a lack of evidence from any source may be considered by the jury in determining a defendant\u2019s guilt (People v. Jordan, 292 Ill. 514,) or the weight to be given to the testimony of his alibi witnesses, to whom this instruction applied.\nThe court gave for the State a lengthy instruction as to the testimony of a defendant on trial, which contained the following: \u201cAnd in determining the degree of credibility that shall be accorded to his testimony the jury have a right to take into consideration the fact that he is interested in the result of the prosecution and his demeanor and conduct upon the witness stand; and the jury may also take into consideration the fact, if such is the fact, that he has been corroborated or contradicted by credible evidence or by facts or circumstances in evidence.\u201d It was error to give this instruction in this case, as it applies these rules to the testimony of plaintiff in error without applying them to the testimony of the other witnesses.\nWe are of the opinion that the judgment of the circuit court of Morgan county should be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Heard" } ], "attorneys": [ "Paul Thompson, Roy M. Seeley, William J. Lawler, and Alfred H. Greening, for plaintiff in error.", "Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, Hugh Green, State\u2019s Attorney, and Merrill F. Wehmhoff, for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 18271.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Harrison Washington, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed October 22, 1927.\nPaul Thompson, Roy M. Seeley, William J. Lawler, and Alfred H. Greening, for plaintiff in error.\nOscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, Hugh Green, State\u2019s Attorney, and Merrill F. Wehmhoff, for the People." }, "file_name": "0152-01", "first_page_order": 152, "last_page_order": 158 }