Lamb v. People
Citations
- 96 Ill. 73
- 1879 Ill. LEXIS 48
Syllabus
<p>1. Instructions—depending on the evidence. The propriety of giving or refusing an instruction must always be determined by the facts established in the particular case. Hence, it often happens that a particular instruction, entirely proper in one case, would be erroneous in another in many respects like it, by reason of some additional element entering into the latter.</p> <p>2. A party on trial for an alleged crime, who has introduced evidence tending to establish a given theory in his defence, which is good if proven, is entitled to have the jury instructed as to the law applicable to the state of facts his evidence tends to prove.</p> <p>3. Criminal law—responsibility for act of another—of the assent required. It may be stated as a general proposition that no one can be properly convicted of a crime to the commission of which he has never expressly or impliedly given his assent.</p> <p>4. Where the accused was present and committed the crime with his own hands, or aided and abetted another in its commission, he will be considered as having expressly assented thereto. So, where he has entered into a conspiracy with others to commit a felony, or other offence, under such circumstances as will, when tested by experience, probably result in the unlawful taking of human life, he will be presumed to have understood the consequences which might reasonably have been expected to follow from carrying into effect the purpose of the unlawful combination, and also to have assented to the doing of whatever would reasonably or probably be necessary to accomplish the objects of the conspiracy, even to the taking of life. But further than this the law does not go.</p> <p>5. If the accused in such case has not expressly assented to the commission of the crime which happened to be the result of attempting to carry into effect the purpose of the conspiracy, and the unlawful enterprise was not of such character as would probably involve the necessity of taking life in carrying it
Judges: Craig, Mulkey
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- The People v. GolsonIllinois Supreme Court· 1965-03-18· cited 143×
- The People v. RybkaIllinois Supreme Court· 1959-03-20· cited 92×
- Myers v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1901-06-15· cited 39×
- State v. DotyOhio Supreme Court· 1916-05-18· cited 39×
- State v. DarlingSupreme Court of Missouri· 1909-02-02· cited 20×
- People v. GukouskiIllinois Supreme Court· 1911-04-19· cited 18×
- People v. KesslerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1973-05-15· cited 16×
- Hilmes v. StroebelWisconsin Supreme Court· 1883-12-11· cited 15×
- The People v. BasileIllinois Supreme Court· 1934-04-21· cited 9×
- The People v. FaughtIllinois Supreme Court· 1931-02-18· cited 9×
- The People v. SuddethIllinois Supreme Court· 1940-06-14· cited 7×
- O'Donnell v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1903-11-12· cited 5×
- Locher v. KlugaAppellate Court of Illinois· 1901-10-24· cited 3×
- In re DoolittleU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri· 1885-03-18· cited 3×
- People v. MuerschAppellate Court of Illinois· 1972-04-10· cited 2×
- Conrad v. StateOhio Supreme Court· 1906-10-16
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Brennan v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1854-06-15· cited 82×
- Miller v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court· 1870-01-15· cited 34×
- Gray v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1861-04-15· cited 21×
- Watts v. StateWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1872-07-15· cited 19×
- Stipp v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1858-11-22· cited 8×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.