Rafferty v. People

Citations

• 66 Ill. 118

Syllabus

<p>1. Change of venue—in capital case. Where one charged with the crime of murder filed his petition for a change of venue, properly verified, showing that he feared he would not receive a fair and impartial trial in the court in which the cause was pending, on account that the inhabitants of the county were prejudiced against him: Held, that the court had no discretion to refuse the application.</p> <p>2. Same—act of 1861 construed. The act of 1861, relating to change of venue in criminal cases, relates solely to offenses which are not punishable 'with death; and as to- capital cases, left the law, as contained in the ItevisedrStatutes of 1843, unchanged.</p> <p>3. Drunkenness—as affecting crime. It is a well settled rule of the common law, recognized in our criminal code, that voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for crime; and when, without intoxication, the law would impute to the act a criminal intent, as in the case of wanton killing without provocation, drunkenness is not available to disprove such intent.</p> <p>4. Same—evidence of in criminal case. As under our statute it belongs to the jury to fix the punishment for murder, which may be either death by hanging, or imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, or for a term not less than fourteen years, it is competent to prove, on the trial, that the accused was intoxicated at the time of the homicide, as showing his condition, and in that respect, it constituting a part of the res gesta, to enable 'the jury intelligently to graduate the punishment. But proof of intoxication an hour or so before the commission of the homicide is not admissible. '</p>