# People v. Marshall

> Illinois Supreme Court · September 18, 1947 · 398 Ill. 256

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3413956

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Emmett Marshall Et Al., Plaintiffs in Error
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 18, 1947
- **Citations:** 398 Ill. 256; 75 N.E.2d 310; 1947 Ill. LEXIS 479
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gunn
- **Judges:** Murphy, Gunn
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3413956

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the defendant, who procured a gun and participated in an unlawful assembly preceding the fatal shooting, was responsible for the act of co-defendant in killing the victim

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Gunn,
concurring in part:
I concur in the part of the opinion resulting in the conviction of Marshall but do not believe the judgment affirming his conviction necessarily results in defendant McCree being also - guilty of murder. The latter is found guilty because of participating in an unlawful assembly. The fact that McCree loaned Marshall a gun, without something more, is not proof that an unlawful assembly was in existence at the time the shot was fired, nor is there proof an unlawful assembly existed in fact. The proof shows the assembly of which McCree was a part was in the first instance peaceable and assembled for a peaceable purpose. In my judgment it is not sufficient to make McCree guilty of participation in the crime of murder from the fact, alone, that Marshall, from fear or panic, fired the fatal shot and turned a lawful assembly into an unlawful one. The elements of intent and malice necessary to a conviction of murder, under such circumstances, are absent, and for this reason I think the defendant McCree is entitled to a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3413956. Public record. Not legal advice.