Hall v. People
| Decision Date | 16 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 30841.,30841. |
| Citation | 402 Ill. 478,84 N.E.2d 418 |
| Parties | HALL v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Macon County; Martin E. Morthland, judge.
Petition by Earl F. Hall against the People of the State of Illinois for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate and set aside a judgment of conviction against petitioner. From a judgment dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Earl F. Hall, pro se.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (Ivan J. Hutchens, State's Atty., of Decatur, of counsel), for the People.
March 20, 1947, appellant, Earl F. Hall, was sentenced to the penitentiary upon conviction of a felony in the circuit court of Macon County. No writ of error has been prosecuted from that judgment. January 9, 1948, plaintiff in error filed a motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis asking that the judgment of conviction against him be vacated and set aside. A motion to dismiss or strike his motion was filed by the People January 12, 1948, and three days later appellant moved to strike the motion of the People. January 16, 1948, these motions were heard and the court entered an order allowing the motion of the People to strike the motion of appellant in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis and denied the writ. The court ordered that appellant take nothing by his suit and that the People go hence without day.
No further action was taken in the cause until July 14, 1948, when appellant made a motion for leave to file an amendment to his original motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis. This was opposed by the People and the court overruled the motion, denied said leave and ordered the clerk to return the amendment to appellant.
A writ of error has been sued out of this court, properly treated as an appeal, to reverse the lower court in striking the original motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis and in refusing to allow appellant to file an amendment to said original motion. The grounds urged for vacating the judgment are that a witness for the People, a stenographer for the State's Attorney, testified falsely that she took shorthand notes of certain admissions or confessions of appellant's co-defendant, Ruth Hall, while in fact her testimony was based upon information dictated to her by the State's Attorney. Two affidavits in support of the motion were attached to it, the pertinent parts of which stated in substance that affiants, Ollie Hall, mother of appellant, and her friend, Elmer Kuns, were requested to attend the trial as witnesses for appellant; that they, with all other witnesses were required to remain in a waiting room until called upon to testify; that while they were so waiting the State's Attorney and his assistant were in the room talking to a State witness, the stenographer employed in the State's Attorney's office; that they heard this stenographer ask the State's Attorney where she was supposed to have been when she took down notes in shorthand of the statement made by Mrs. Hall (said codefendan and wife of appellant;) that they heard the State's Attorney tell this stenographer that she was supposedto have been in the city police station when she took down Mrs. Hall's statement, and that they also heard the State's Attorney tell this witness ‘That is right;’ that the information of the above conversation between the State's Attorney and his stenographer was conveyed to appellant and his attorney, and the attorney expressed his appreciation for the information and stated that Ollie Hall and Elmer Kuns would be called upon to testify as to what they had heard, but that they were not called upon to so testify.
Appellant assumes that what passed between the State's Attorney and his stenographer as above indicated shows that any testimony given by her to the effect that she took down a statement of Mrs. Ruth Hall would be untrue, that she had in fact taken no statement and that any testimony given by her to the effect that she had taken a statement would amount to perjury. He also takes the position that the fact that his mother and Kuns were not called as witnesses clearly indicated that his counsel was incompetent, indifferent or purposely handled his defense in a manner calculated to procure his conviction.
The purpose of a writ of error coram nobis at common law, and of the motion substituted for it by section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1947, c. 110, s 196, is to bring before the court rendering the judgment matters of fact not appearing of record, which, if known at the time the judgment was rendered, would have prevented its rendition, Linehan v. Travelers Ins. Co. 370 Ill. 157, 18 N.E.2d 178;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Polo Builders Inc.
...has an obligation to ask the party in possession by what right he claims possession and what his interest is. Bryant, 402 Ill. at 477, 84 N.E.2d at 418. The purchaser is charged with notice of all facts such an inquiry would reveal. Id. at 477-78, 84 N.E.2d at 418; see also Ehrlich, 59 B.R.......
-
United States v. Ragen
......People v. Chapman, 392 Ill. 168, 64 N.E.2d 529. Coram Nobis is not available inasmuch as the statutory period of limitations of five years has also expired. Hall v. People, 402 Ill. 478, 84 N.E.2d 418. Habeas corpus was filed in the Trial Court, namely, The Circuit Court of Lake County, State of Illinois, and ......
-
People v. Lawton
......Anderson, 31 Ill.2d 262, 201 N.E.2d 394 (1964), Putnam v. People, 408 Ill. 582, 97 N.E.2d 841 (1951), People v. Sheppard, 405 Ill. 79, 90 N.E.2d 78 (1950), and Hall v. People, 402 Ill. 478, 84 N.E.2d 418 (1949). See 335 Ill.App.3d at 1086-87, 269 Ill.Dec. 932, 781 N.E.2d 1122. Those cases, however, involved criminal defendants who had brought collateral challenges to the judgments in the criminal proceedings against them. Such defendants are entitled to seek ......
-
People v. Sheppard, 31179
...... Hall v. People, 402 Ill. 478, 84 N.E.2d 418; People v. Dugan, 401 Ill. 442, 82 N.E.2d 482. Neither the common-law writ of error coram nobis nor its statutory substitute in Illinois lies, however, to determine a factual question which has been adjudicated, even though decided wrongly, to correct alleged ......