Hagenow v. People

• Decision Date: 20 December 1900
• Parties: HAGENOW v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

188 Ill. 545

59 N.E. 242

HAGENOW

v.PEOPLE.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 20, 1900.

Error to criminal court, Cook county; Frank Baker, Judge.

Louise Hagenow was convicted of manslaughter, and brings error. Affirmed

D. G. Ramsay and H. D. Bottum (John F. Geeting and Henry C. Geeting, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

E. C. Akin, Atty. Gen. (Charles S. Deneen, State's Atty., and Ben. M. Smith, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for the People.

PHILLIPS, J.

At the September term, 1899, of the criminal court of Cook county, plaintiff in error was indicted for the murder of one Marie Hecht by committing an abortion upon her on the 24th day of August, 1899, from the effect of which she died on the 1st day of September thereafter. A trial was had at the January term of the court, and the jury found her guilty of manslaughter, and fixed her punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary. Motions for new trial and in arrest were overruled, and on February 19th judgment of conviction was entered, and she was ordered to be confined in the penitentiary at Joliet, to be held in custody ‘until discharged by the state board of pardons, as authorized and directed by law, provided such term of imprisonment in said penitentiary shall not exceed the maximum term for the crime for which said defendant was convicted and sentenced.’ The errors assigned, and for which a reversal is asked, will be taken up in order, from which the facts of the case will sufficiently appear.

It is claimed that the grand jury which found the indictment was not selected and impaneled as required by law. By the amendment of 1897 of the jury act (Laws 1897, p. 243), provision is made in counties of 100,000 inhabitants for the appointment of three electors to act as jury commissioners. Section 4 of that amendment provides for the selection by the jury commissioners, from time to time, from the jury list prepared by them (provided for in section 2 of the act), of the requisite number of names, which are each to be written on separate tickets, with the age, place of residence, and occupation of each, if known; the whole to be put into the grand-jury box. The section, after providing that the jurors so selected shall, as near as may be, be residents of different parts of the county and of different occupations, provides as follows: ‘And one or more of the judges of said court shall certify to the clerk of the court the number of jurors required at each term. The said clerk shall then repair to the office of the jury commissioners, and, in the presence of at least two of said commissioners, and also in the presence of the clerk of said commissioners, if there be one, proceed to draw at random from said jury box, after the same shall have been well shaken, the necessary number of names, and shall certify the same to the sheriff, to be by him summoned according to law. If more jurors are needed during said term the court shall so certify, and they shall be drawn and summoned as above provided, forthwith.’ The record in this case with reference to the impaneling of the jury is as follows: ‘It appearing to the court that public justice requires a grand jury be selected and summoned for the next term of this court, in accordance with the statute in such case made and provided the court, of its own motion, doth order that the jury commissionersof Cook county do, at least twenty days before the first day of the next term of this court, select fifty persons, possessing the qualifications of jurors required by law, to serve as grand jurors at said term, and that said commissioners shall, within five days after such selection, certify the names of the persons so selected as grand jurors to the clerk of this court, who shall issue and deliver to the sheriff of Cook county, at least ten days before the next term of this court, a summons commanding the said sheriff to summon the persons so selected as aforesaid to appear before this court at the hour of ten o'clock on the third Monday of the next term thereof, to constitute a grand jury for such term. It is further ordered by the court that the clerk of this court transmit a certified copy of this order to the said jury commissioners forthwith. And afterwards, to wit, on the 18th day of September in the year last aforesaid, it being the term of court aforesaid, the following among other proceedings were had and entered on record in said court, which said proceedings are in the words and figures following, to wit: ‘The sheriff of Cook county returned into court the venire facias heretofore issued for a grand jury for this term, and returnable this day, by which it appears that the following named persons have been duly summoned to appear this day and serve as grand jurors at the present term of this court.’' No motion to quash the indictment was interposed, and no proof appears in the record, nor was any offered, so far as the record discloses, as to the manner in which the grand jury was selected. In Gitchell v. People, 146 Ill. 175, 33 N. E. 757, it is said (page 186, 146 Ill., and page 760, 33 N. E.): ‘As a general rule, pleading to an indictment admits its genuineness as a record. * * * After a party has pleaded to an indictment and been convicted, it is too late to object to the constitution of the grand jury.’ See, also, 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (1st Ed.) 3, 5; U. S. v. Gale, 109 U. S. 65, 3 Sup. Ct. 1, 27 L. Ed. 857;People v. Petrea, 92 N. Y. 135;Preston v. State, 63 Ala. 127;State v. Scarborough, 55 Md. 345;Wilson v. People, 3 Colo. 225;Stone v. People, 2 Scam. 326;Williams v. People, 54 Ill. 422. Authorities cited by counsel for plaintiff in error in support of the contention that an indictment found by a grand jury irregularly chosen is void are all cases, so far as we have been able to examine them, where exception was regularly and specially made in apt time. The alleged irregularity in the drawing and selection of the grand jury, as presented by the record, comes too late to be available as an objection.

The second error assigned is that the indictment is insufficient, in that it does not sufficiently describe the instrument, and the manner of its use, which it is alleged caused the death, and is argumentative as to the cause of death. No specific objections are pointed out by the plaintiff in error. The indictment states the offense in the language of the statute, and so that the charge may be easily understood by the jury. The manner of use of the means employed to accomplish the act which it is alleged resulted in the death of Marie Hecht is sufficiently explicit in this record, as well as stating the cause of death.

It is next claimed the evidence does not sustain the verdict. Twelve witnesses were examined for the people, in addition to the introduction of the dying declaration of Marie Hecht. This statement is as follows (omitting the unimportant portions): ‘I, Marie Hecht, now lying dangerously ill at the St. Elizabeth's Hospital, and believing I am about to die, make this, my ante mortem statement: I am twenty-three years old, and will be twenty-four years on the 19th day of November. * * * In January of this year I became acquainted with John Schockweiler, a young man about twenty years old, who is employed in a freight house on the South side, and resides at 149 Orleans street. I had sexual intercourse with him for about five or six times, and in the month of...