Lavin v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1873 |
| Citation | 69 Ill. 303,1873 WL 8457 |
| Parties | MICHAEL LAVINv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding.
Mr. WILLIAM VOCKE, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. JAMES K. EDSALL, Attorney General, for the People.
At the October term of the Criminal Court of Cook county, an indictment was found by the grand jury, against Michael Lavin, for selling intoxicating liquors to a certain person who was in the habit of getting intoxicated.
At the January term, 1873, of the court, a trial was had before a jury, and the defendant found guilty.
In selecting a jury to try the cause in the Criminal Court, the defendant propounded to each juror called, the following questions:
First. Are you a member of a temperance society.
Second. Are you connected with any society or league organized for the purpose of prosecuting a certain class of people, under what is called the new temperance law of the State; or have you ever contributed any funds for such a purpose?
The people, by the State's Attorney, objected to the jurors answering the questions, and the court sustained the objection, and would not permit the jurors to answer, and to this ruling of the court defendant excepted.
It is the policy of our laws to afford each and every person who may have a cause for trial in our courts, a fair and impartial trial. This can only be done by having the mind of each juror who sits to pass judgment upon the life, liberty or rights of a suitor entirely free from bias or prejudice. In order to determine whether the person who may be called as a juror possesses the necessary qualifications, whether he has prejudged the case, whether his mind is free from prejudice or bias, the suitor has the right to ask him questions, the answer to which may tend to show he may be challenged for cause, or disclose a state of facts from which the suitor may see proper to reject such juror peremptorily.
In case of The Commonwealth v. Egan et al. 4 Gray, 18, which was an indictment for being common sellers of spirituous liquors, Egan, before his cause was opened to the jury, inquired if any member of the panel belonged to the Carson League, and one answered that he was a member of said league; that, as he understood it, the object of the society was to prosecute persons for violation of the liquor law, so called; that assessments were made upon members for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the society; that they had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Spies v. People (In re Anarchists)
-
People v. Sanders
...702 N.E.2d 1282 (1998)); abortion ( People v. Murawski, 2 Ill.2d 143, 117 N.E.2d 88 (1954)); dram shop and temperance ( Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873); Schneider v. Kirk, 83 Ill.App.2d 170, 226 N.E.2d 655 (1967)); and life-qualifying questions in capital cases ( People v. Buss, 187 Ill......
-
People v. Glasper
...error because it deprives the defendant of the right to select an impartial jury. As early as 1873, for example, in Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303 (1873), this court applied this principle when it considered whether a trial court's failure to ask the venire if they were members in or affiliat......
-
Crowley v. Watson
...of each juror who sits to pass judgment upon the life, liberty or rights of another entirely free from bias or prejudice. Lavin v. People, 69 Ill. 303, 304 (1873). A two-prong test must be satisfied to order a new trial in this context. Pekelder v. Edgewater Automotive Co., 68 Ill.2d 136, 1......