Armstrong v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 April 1865 |
| Citation | 37 Ill. 459,1865 WL 2845 |
| Parties | WILLIAM W. ARMSTRONGv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Rock Island county; Hon. IRA O. WILKINSON, J.
This was an indictment against Armstrong for “feloniously administering to a woman, then pregnant with child, certain drugs and liquids with intent to procure a miscarriage.” The verdict of the jury found the defendant “guilty” and fixed “his term of imprisonment in the penitentiary at two years, together with a fine of one hundred dollars.” The court adopted the verdict and entered judgment in accordance with it. Writ of error.
J. B. HAWLEY and GEO. W. PLEASANTS, for plaintiff in error, cite Gerard v. The People, 3 Scam., 362; Holliday v. The People, 4 Gilm., 111; Highland v. The People, 1 Scam., 394; 1 Chitty Crim. Law, 365; Lady Alice Lisle's Case, State Trials, Vol. 2, p. 374; Rookwood's Case, State Trials, Vol. 13, p. 222; Cranburne's Case, State Trials, Vol. 13, p. 266.
CHAS. BLANCHARD, State's Attorney, for the people, cited Coit v. Wolfes, 1 Min., 134. Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the court:
This was an indictment in the Rock Island Circuit Court against the plaintiff in error for feloniously administering to a woman then pregnant with child, certain drugs and liquids, with intent to procure a miscarriage.
The indictment was found under section 46 of the criminal code which is in these words: Every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or taken any such poison, substance or liquid with intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child, and shall thereof be duly convicted, shall be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years in the penitentiary and fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars. Scates' Comp. 381. The plea was not guilty.
A trial was had, and the following verdict was rendered: We the jury in the above case, find the defendant guilty, and fix his term of imprisonment in the penitentiary at two years, together with a fine of one hundred dollars. A motion was duly entered to set aside this verdict, which being overruled, a motion was then entered to arrest the judgment, which was also overruled, and the court, thereupon, in entering judgment, adopted the finding of the jury and assessed a fine of one hundred dollars, together with the costs.
The case is brought here by writ of error, and the only point made by plaintiff in error is, that the verdict is insufficient to warrant the judgment entered, or any judgment upon it.
It is conceded on both sides that it was not competent for the jury to impose a fine upon the prisoner--they had only to determine the question of guilt, and to fix the term of imprisonment if found guilty. The question then arises, does this imposition of a fine by the jury, vitiate the verdict?
The old maxim, utile per inutile non vitiatur, is a salutary maxim, and is recognized in criminal, as well as in civil cases. The useful portion of this verdict, is the finding of guilty, and finding the term of imprisonment; the useless or superfluous portion, is the imposition of the fine. Without this portion of the verdict, the finding of the jury is unexceptionable on this point. This part of the verdict then, must be held as surplusage, and as such, not vitiating the other part, which the jury properly found. But it is said, the verdict is insufficient because it does not find the accused guilty of any specific offense, either by description, by reference to the indictment or otherwise.
Formerly, much strictness was required and observed in all criminal prosecutions. A culprit was required to be formally arraigned, and for purposes of identification, to hold up his hand to be asked with great form and solemnity if he was guilty or not guilty, and if not guilty how would he be tried, and when the jury returned their verdict, they were required by the court to look upon the prisoner, and to the inquiry how do you find...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...some counts are faulty, if there be "one good count"). The rationale behind this legal construct was explained in Armstrong v. People, 37 Ill. 459, 462-63 (1865). In Armstrong, the court noted that, at common law, a verdict was not valid unless it stated that the defendant was found guilty ......
-
People v. Braboy
...dependent on some factor not specifically found by the jury." Smith, 233 Ill.2d at 20, 329 Ill.Dec. 331, 906 N.E.2d 529; Armstrong v. People, 37 Ill. 459, 464 (1865). Courts have held that, where a general murder verdict is delivered for a defendant who is charged with murder in multiple co......
-
People v. Boer
...of the aggravated offense, he was plainly guilty of robbery under the statute, as charged in the first part of the count. In Armstrong v. People, 37 Ill. 459, where the jury found the defendant guilty, and fixed his punishment at a term in the penitentiary, ‘together with a fine of $100,’ w......
-
Herman v. People
...defendants were found guilty by the jury upon each of the six remaining counts in the indictment. Curtis v. People, Breese, 259; Armstrong v. People, 37 Ill. 459;Lyons v. People, 68 Ill. 271;Tobin v. People, 104 Ill. 565. In this case, as we have seen, the counts are not inconsistent with e......