Lewis v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1867 |
| Citation | 1867 WL 5183,44 Ill. 452 |
| Parties | GEORGE LEWISv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Clay county; the Hon. AARON SHAW, Judge, presiding.
At the October Term, 1865, of the Clay Circuit Court, the grand jury presented an indictment against George Lewis and others, for stealing one mare of the value of $150, and one colt of the value of $50. A capias was issued, and defendant was arrested.
The cause was tried at the May Term, 1867. After hearing the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and found the property stolen to be of the value of $200, and fixed the term of defendant's confinement at four years in the penitentiary.
Defendant entered a motion for a new trial, for the reason, among others, that the officer taking charge of the jury was not sworn as required by the statute. This ground was supported by affidavit of its truth.
The court overruled the motion and rendered judgment on the verdict, and sentenced defendant to be confined in the penitentiary for the term found in the verdict, to reverse which defendant prosecutes this writ of error, and relies upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial for a reversal.
Mr. SILAS L. BRYAN, for the plaintiff in error. Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:
In this case plaintiff was indicted for stealing a mare and colt. A trial was subsequently had in the Circuit Court, resulting in a verdict of “guilty,” and that he be confined in the penitentiary for the term of four years. A motion was entered for a new trial, upon the ground, among others, that the jury, when trying the case, after hearing the evidence, retired to consider of their verdict, in charge of an officer who was not sworn in the mode prescribed by the statute. The motion was overruled and a judgment rendered on the verdict. The record discloses the fact, that the officer in whose charge the jury were placed while deliberating on their verdict was not sworn, and this is the only error relied upon for a reversal.
The 189th section of the Criminal Code, R. S. 186, declares, that, “When the jury shall 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 the court, until they shall have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Shelby v. Ziegler
-
Shelby v. Ziegler
... ... Citizens' ... Traction Co. of San Diego, supra), which state has a similar ... statute to our own. It is very probable that the fact that ... motions were ... ...
- Lee v. State
-
Dreyer v. People
...of an officier, unless it is otherwise ordered by the court on the consent of the accused and the attorney for the people.’ In Lewis v. People, 44 Ill. 452, after stating the foregoing section of the statute, it was again said (page 454): ‘These provisions show the great care and solicitude......