Hamilton v. People
1885 Ill. LEXIS 661, 113 Ill. 34 (1885)
Rule of Law:
Individuals who are co-conspirators in a dangerous criminal enterprise are equally responsible for all acts committed by any one of them during the enterprise, especially if violence is a foreseeable outcome. Furthermore, certain common tools, such as a hoe, are considered deadly weapons per se, requiring no additional proof of their dangerous character in an assault charge.
Facts:
- For two nights, someone had been repeatedly trespassing in Samuel Parks' water-melon patch.
- On September 1, 1883, between 8 and 10 P.M., Samuel Parks and his son went to the melon patch, the son carrying a shotgun.
- William Hamilton, Hat Mitchell, and William Eaton entered the melon patch, with one of them stating, 'The biggest ones are down-this way.'
- Mitchell approached Samuel Parks, while Hamilton and Eaton moved towards Parks's son; Eaton called Mitchell a 'damned coward' and encouraged him to return, stating, 'There’s only a man and a boy,—let’s get what we came after.'
- Eaton rushed Parks's son, knocked him down, and took his shotgun, while Hamilton caught Samuel Parks and threw him down, hitting him in the face and head with a hard object.
- Mrs. Parks arrived with a hoe; Eaton knocked her down and 'chucked her head upon the ground.'
- Mitchell gave a stone to Hamilton, which Samuel Parks intercepted and used to strike Hamilton.
- As Samuel Parks was rising, Eaton shot at him with a pistol, burning his face, and then Mitchell hit Samuel Parks on the head with the hoe, rendering him unconscious.
Procedural Posture:
- At the September term, 1883, of the Saline circuit court (the trial court), William Hamilton, Hat Mitchell, and William Eaton were jointly indicted for assault upon Samuel Parks with intent to murder.
- At the March term, 1884, of the Saline circuit court, Hamilton and Mitchell were put on trial.
- The jury convicted Hamilton and Mitchell, fixing their confinement in the penitentiary at two years.
- The Saline circuit court sentenced Hamilton and Mitchell accordingly.
- Hamilton and Mitchell (appellants) brought the record to the present appellate court for review, asking for a reversal of their conviction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1) Is there sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for assault with intent to murder when multiple individuals engage in a dangerous common criminal enterprise and one co-conspirator commits the violent acts? 2) Is a hoe considered a deadly weapon per se, such that its deadly character does not require specific proof before a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Mulkey
Yes, there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for assault with intent to murder, and a hoe is considered a deadly weapon per se. The court found that despite minor discrepancies in the testimony of Samuel Parks and his son, there was ample evidence to warrant the conviction. It was an undisputed fact that Hamilton, Mitchell, and Eaton were co-conspirators who invaded Parks's premises with a criminal purpose. The court reasoned that since they had deliberately entered a dangerous criminal enterprise, they had a right to expect violence, and thus, whatever was done by one co-conspirator was, in contemplation of law, done by all, making all equally responsible. The court dismissed Mitchell's claim that Mrs. Parks struck her husband, noting it was contradicted by both Mr. and Mrs. Parks. Regarding the weapons, the court held that a hoe, in both popular and legal signification, is per se a deadly weapon, just as much as a loaded pistol or an axe, and therefore, its deadly character does not need to be proven before a jury, as it is something all persons of ordinary intelligence are presumed to know. The indictment, though somewhat informal, was deemed sufficient after the verdict, as the gist of the offense is assault with a felonious intent, not the particular manner of the assault.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the common law principle of accomplice liability, particularly within the context of a dangerous common criminal enterprise, where all participants are held responsible for foreseeable violent actions. It clarifies that appellate courts will defer to jury verdicts when sufficient evidence supports the conviction, even with minor testimonial inconsistencies. Furthermore, the ruling provides a crucial legal standard for classifying certain common objects as 'deadly weapons per se,' streamlining prosecution by eliminating the need for specific evidentiary proof of their dangerous potential, thus impacting future cases involving assault with such items.
