Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 Ill. 231

McCarty v. People

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1869

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1869-09-15

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Kane county; the Hon. Sylvahus Wilcox, Judge, presiding. John McCarty was indicted in the court below, for the alleged murder of one Michael Kinsella. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, and the jury fixed the term of confinement in the penitentiary at ten years. A new trial was denied, and judgment entered upon the verdict, and the defendant thereupon sued out this writ of error.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 1977

10 state decisions

20186918701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Breese

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2The only point made on this record, deemed necessary to be noticed, is, that after the defendant had given evidence of his good character, by general reputation, permitting the prosecution to give in evidence particular acts of misconduct or crime, in rebuttal, and that, by rumors and reports in the country.

¶3Were this the law, no person arraignéd for crime, in which his uniform good character prior to the alleged offense, which this court has said is an element proper for the jury to consider in the trial of all offenses, had been established by testimony, would incur the risk attendant upon the production of such proof, if it could be rebutted by proof of rumors or reports of particular aberrations. Every man is presumed ready at all times to defend his general character, but not his individual acts—of those he must have due notice. FTo matter how pure one’s life may be, he would hardly venture upon the proof if to be followed by such consequences.

¶4We have been referred to no authority allowing such evidence in rebuttal, and on principle we do not think the right to do so can be maintained.

¶5For this error the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, that a new trial may be had.

¶6Judgment reversed.

/51/ill/231 · .json · Public domain