People v. Connors
253 Ill. 266 · Illinois Supreme Court · 1912
Facts
On April 20, 1911, in Chicago, members of the International Association of Steam-fitters were working at the Hygienic Ice Company building. Joseph Kane, a former International member who had recently joined and become a business agent for the rival United Association, led a group of 15-20 armed men into the building. The group, including William Connors, Peter Gentleman, Arthur O’Connor, and Edward Storgaard, commanded the International members to cease work, remove their overalls, and join the United Association, threatening to shoot or kill them if they refused. Morgan H. Bell was specifically targeted, with Storgaard pointing a revolver at him and threatening to "bore a hole through him" if he didn't comply, and Connors and Gentleman later holding guns to him with similar threats. Other workers were also threatened. Police arrived, causing the attacking party to flee, though Storgaard was arrested with a loaded revolver.
Procedural history
William Connors, Peter Gentleman, Arthur O’Connor, and Edward Storgaard were jointly indicted at the June term of the criminal court of Cook county for unlawful assault upon Morgan H. Bell. At the August term, a jury found them guilty of assault to murder, and they were sentenced to imprisonment after motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled. The case reached this court on appeal, challenging the application of law to the facts.
Issue
Does pointing a loaded revolver at someone within shooting distance and threatening to shoot them unless an unlawful demand is met constitute the specific intent to kill required for a conviction of assault with intent to murder?
Holding
Yes, the court held that a conditional threat to kill, where the condition is an unlawful demand, satisfies the specific intent requirement for assault with intent to murder, and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Rule
An assault with intent to murder may be complete when an assailant, with the present ability to destroy life, draws a dangerous weapon and threatens to kill unless the victim complies with an unlawful condition or demand. The law does not tolerate violence or intimidation to enforce unlawful demands, and such acts are criminal. When an assailant suspends the execution of their purpose merely to give the victim a chance to comply with an unlawful demand, the offense is complete, even if the victim's submission averts the felony. An unlawful condition is treated as no condition, and the case is determined as though the unlawful demand did not exist, ensuring that perpetrators do not profit from their unlawful conduct.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.