Edward Dreyer v. People of the State of Illinois
Citation | 47 L.Ed. 79,23 S.Ct. 28,187 U.S. 71 |
Decision Date | 10 November 1902 |
Docket Number | No. 37,37 |
Parties | EDWARD S. DREYER, Plff. in Err. , v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 71-72 intentionally omitted] By an indictment returned in the criminal court of Cook county, Illinois, on the 4th day of February, 1899, the plaintiff in error, Dreyer, was charged with the offense of having failed to turn over to his successor in office, as treasurer of the West Chicago park commissioners, revenues, bonds, funds, warrants, and personal property that came to his hands as such treasurer, of the value of $316,013.40,—said commissioners constituting a board of public park commissioners appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate of Illinois, and, as such, having the supervision of the public parks and boulevards in the town of West Chicago, and authority under the law to collect and disburse moneys, bonds, etc., for their maintenance.
The indictment was based on § 215 of the Criminal Code of Illinois, which is as follows:
Hurd's Rev. Stat. 1901, § 215, p. 630.
A trial was commenced on the 29th day of August, 1899, and a jury was impaneled and evidence heard. The jury, not having agreed upon a verdict, were discharged.
A second trial was begun on the 19th day of February, 1900. The defendant filed a plea of once in jeopardy, which in substance averred that it was not true, as recited in the order of court at the previous trial, that the jury were unable to agree upon a verdict; also, that the discharge of the jury was without the defendant's assent, was against his objections made at the time, and was without any moral or physical necessity justifying such a course on the part of the trial court.
On motion of the state the plea of former jeopardy was stricken from the files, the defendant at the time excepting to the action of the court.
There was a second trial, which resulted in the defendant being found 'guilty of failure to pay over money to his successor in office, in manner and form as charged in the indictment,' the jury stating in the verdict the amount not paid over to be $316,000, and imposing the punishment of confinement in the penitentiary.
The defendant, upon written grounds filed, moved for a new trial, and also moved in arrest of judgment. Both motions were overruled, and it was ordered and adjudged that the defendant be sentenced to the penitentiary 'for the crime of failure to pay over money to his successor in office, whereof he stands convicted.'
The judgment of the trial court having been affirmed by the supreme court of Illinois, the case is here upon writ of error allowed by the chief justice of that court.
Messrs.Alfred S. Austrian, T. A. Moran and Levy Mayer for plaintiff in error.
Charles S. Deneen for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Harlan, after stating the facts as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court:
It is contended that the judgment of the supreme court of Illinois, affirming the judgment, in the present case, of the criminal court of Cook county, in that state, denied to the plaintiff in error certain rights secured to him by the Constitution of the United States, particularly by the clause of the 14th Amendment forbidding a state to deprive any person of liberty without due process of law.
The defendant insists that three questions, involving rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, are presented by the assignments of error:
1. The first of those questions, as stated by his counsel, relates to the alleged 'omission to swear the bailiffs in the manner prescribed by the common law and the statutes of the state of Illinois before the jury retired to consider of their verdict.' This point will be first examined.
The Criminal Code of Illinois provides: 'When the jury retire to consider of their verdict, in any criminal case, a constable or other officer shall be sworn or affirmed to attend the jury to some private and convenient place, and to the best of his ability keep them together without meat or drink (water excepted), unless by leave of court, until they shall have agreed upon their verdict, nor suffer others to speak to them, and that when they shall have agreed upon their verdict he will return them into court: Provided, In cases of misdemeanor only, if the prosecutor for the People and the person on trial, by himself or counsel, shall agree, which agreement shall be entered upon the minutes of the court, to dispense with the attendance of an officer upon the jury, or that the jury, when they have agreed upon their verdict, may write and seal the same, and after delivering the same to the clerk, may separate, it shall be lawful for the court to carry into effect any such agreement, and receive any such verdict so delivered to the clerk as the lawful verdict of such jury.' Hurd's (Ill.) Rev. Stat. 1901, § 435.
Referring to this section the supreme court, in the present case, said that it was reversible error, in a trial for a felony, to allow the jury to retire for the purpose of considering their verdict without being placed in charge of a sworn officer, as required by the statute,—citing McIntyre v. People, 38 Ill. 514, 518; Lewis v. People, 44 Ill. 452, 454; Sanders v. People, 124 Ill. 218, 16 N. E. 81; and Farley v. People, 138 Ill. 97, 27 N. E. 927. In Lewis v. People, just cited, the court observed that the provisions of the above section
But the court further said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schwartz v. Judicial Retirement System of NJ
...whether the due process of law prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment has been respected by the State ...." Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71, 84, 23 S.Ct. 28, 32, 47 L.Ed. 79 (1902). See also Highland Farms Dairy v. Agnew, 300 U.S. 608, 612, 57 S.Ct. 549, 551, 81 L.Ed. 835 (1937) (distributi......
-
Halleck v. Berliner
...in accordance with the separation of powers required by the Constitution for the national government. Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71, 83-84, 23 S.Ct. 28, 47 L.Ed. 79 (1902); Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 225, 29 S.Ct. 67, 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908); Hughes v. Superior Court, 3......
-
State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...of the government, or the powers conferred do not in effect impair rights that are secured by the federal Constitution. See Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71, text 84, 23 28, 47 L.Ed. 79; Winchester & S. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 106 Va. 266, 55 S.E. 692. The Constitution provides that 'the pow......
-
Tibbs v. Florida
...S.Ct. 834, 837, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949); Keerl v. Montana, 213 U.S. 135, 29 S.Ct. 469, 53 L.Ed. 734 (1909); Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71, 84-86, 23 S.Ct. 28, 32-33, 47 L.Ed. 79 (1902); Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 298, 12 S.Ct. 617, 628, 36 L.Ed. 429 (1892); United States v. Perez, ......
-
U.s. Supreme Court Decisions: 1975-1976
...be determined anew by judicial, rather than by executive, proceedings. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972); Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71 (1902). Justice Douglas would have denied certiorari. Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented. The issue was one of first impression and should, the......
-
Ascertaining the laws of the several states: positivism and judicial federalism after Erie.
...on numerous occasions that the Constitution's strict separation of powers does not apply to the states. See, e.g., Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71, 84 (1902) (stating that "[w]hether the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of a State shall be kept altogether distinct and separate, o......
-
ONCE BITTEN, TWICE SHY: THE SUPREME COURT'S MISGUIDED DOUBLING DOWN ON THE DUAL SOVEREIGNS EXCEPTION TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE.
...supra note 64, at 233 (noting pre-incorporation limitations upon Double Jeopardy Clause protections). (112) See Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71, 85-86 (1902) (disregarding due process claims to find retrial following mistrial did not implicate double jeopardy); see also Rudstein, supra note......
-
CHAPTER 14 DOUBLE JEOPARDY
...added).[65] 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 579 (1824).[66] Id.[67] Schulhofer, Note 62, supra, at 459.[68] Besides Perez, see Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71 (1902).[69] Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199 (1916).[70] Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271 (1894).[71] Simmons v. United States, 142 U.S. ......