Guthmann v. People
| Decision Date | 16 June 1903 |
| Citation | 67 N.E. 821,203 Ill. 260 |
| Parties | GUTHMANN v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Peoria County; T. M. Green, Judge.
Siegmund Guthmann was convicted of forgery, and brings error. Reversed.Appell & Rousseau, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. Tefft and Edwin Hedrick, for the State.
This is a writ of error to the circuit court of Peoria county to review the judgment of that court in overruling the motion of the plaintiff in error that he be set at liberty under the provisions of paragraph 623, Cr. Code (1 Starr & C. Ann. St. [2d Ed.] p. 1406), which in part reads as follows: ‘Any person committed for a criminal or supposed criminal offense, and not admitted to bail, and not tried at some term of the court having jurisdiction of the offense commencing within four months of the date of commitment, or if there is no term commencing within that time, then at or before the first term commencing after said four months, shall be set at liberty by the court, unless the delay shall happen on the application of the prisoner, or unless the court is satisfied that due exertion has been made to procure the evidence on the part of the people, and that there is reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence may be procured at the next term, in which case the court may continue the case to the next term.’
It appears from the record that on the 28th day of October, 1902, the plaintiff in error was committed to the county jail of Peoria county upon a mittimus issued by a police magistrate of the city of Peoria upon a charge of forgery. The commitment occurred during the September term of the circuit court of said county, and after the grand jury for that term had been discharged. At the November term no grand jury was in attendance upon the court, an order of court having been entered dispensing with the grand jury for that term. On the 23d day of January, 1903, which was one of the days of the January term of said court, an indictment was returned against the plaintiff in error for the crime for which he had been committed by the police magistrate. The case was not tried at that term, and was continued by operation of law. On March 20, 1903, which was one of the days of the March term of said court, the case was called for trial, whereupon the plaintiff in error entered a motion that he be set at liberty, supported by affidavt, which showed that defendant had been confined in the county jail of Peoria county continuously from the 28th day of October, 1902, to March 20, 1903, upon the said criminal charge; that he had not been tried for said offense, although two full terms of said court had elapsed since his commitment; that the delay in bringing him to trial had not happened on his application, nor for the purpose of procuring evidence on the part of the people. The court overruled the motion, whereupon the case was tried before a jury, and the plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary.
HAND, C. J. (after stating the facts).
The assignments of error in this case call for the construction of the provision of the statute set forth in the statement preceding this opinion. The plaintiff in error had been confined in jail from the 28th day of October, 1902, to the 20th day of March, 1903, without having been given an opportunity for trial, and the only question in this case is whether the time of his commitment for the purposes of a discharge under said statute dates from the 28th day of October, 1902, the day of his incarceration under the mittimus issued by the police magistrate, or from the 23d day of January, 1903, the day of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Keefe
...v. Morino, (Cal.) 24 P. 892; In re. Begerow, 133 Cal. 349; State v. Faskett, 5 Rich., (S. C.) 255; State v. Kuhn, 154 Ind. 450; Guthman v. People, 203 Ill. 260; People Heider, 225 Ill. 347; Dudland v. State, 126 Ga. 580; Brooks v. People, 88 Ill. 327; State v. Breaw, 45 Ore. 586; State v. R......
-
Keefe v. District Court of Carbon County
...v. Morino (Cal.), 24 P. 892; In re Begerow, 133 Cal. 349; State v. Fasket, 5 Rich. L. (S. C.), 255; State v. Kuhn, 154 Ind. 450; Guthman v. People, 203 Ill. 260; People Heider, 225 Ill. 347; Dublin v. State, 126 Ga. 580.) Upon this question the confinement of Keefe in the penitentiary under......
-
People v. Gray
...indictment and that defendant was, in fact, tried within the statutory period following indictment. This is answered in Guthmann v. People, 203 Ill. 260, 67 N.E. 821, where it is said that the statute begins to run from the date defendant is in custody by reason of the service of a warrant,......
-
People v. Kidd
...in custody from the time they were acquitted of robbery until the capias on the assault charge was issued and served. In Guthmann v. People, 203 Ill. 260, 67 N. E. 821, we held that, in harmony with the constitutional provision for speedy trial, the statutory period fixed for discharge of a......