Needham v. People

Citations

• 98 Ill. 275
• 1881 Ill. LEXIS 253

Syllabus

<p>1. Credibility oe witness—who shall determine. The jury in a criminal case are not obliged to discredit the testimony of detectives and believe that of the accused, although cautioned against the danger to be apprehended from the testimony given by the former. The witnesses all being before the jury it is their province to determine the questions of fact testified to by them.</p> <p>2. New trial—criminal case—on the evidence. Where all the evidence is fairly considered in a criminal case, if this court can not say the verdict of conviction has the appearance of being the result of ignorance, passion or prejudice, a new trial will not be granted.</p> <p>3. Instruction—in the language of the statute. On the trial of one for robbery, an instruction was given, in the language of the statute, defining the offence and prescribing the punishment. It further gave the jury, in the language of the statute, the more severe punishment if the defendant wfis armed with a dangerous weapon, with intent, if resisted, to kill or maim, or being so armed should wound or strike the person robbed, or if he had any confederate present so armed to aid or abet him. There was evidence that one of the parties robbing struck the person robbed with a pistol. The jury found the defendant guilty and fixed his punishment at'the lowest time they could, without regard to the use of any dangerous weapon: Held, that there-was no error prejudicial to the defendant-, in giving the instruction.</p> <p>4. Same—when it works no prejudice. When it is evident, from the finding of the jury in a criminal case, that the defendant was in nowise prejudiced by an instruction, it forms no ground for a reversal.</p> <p>5. Same—good, if substantially correct. It is not sufficient to reverse a conviction, that one of the people’s instructions is not literally correct, when it is conceded to be substantially so.</p> <p>6. Same—modification by the court. On the trial of one for robbery, the court was asked on the par