People ex rel. Keith v. Keith, No. 40469
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | SCHAEFER; WARD |
| Citation | 231 N.E.2d 387,38 Ill.2d 405 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE ex rel. Harold KEITH, Appellee, v. Glenn KEITH, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40469 |
Page 387
v.
Glenn KEITH, Appellant.
[38 Ill.2d 406]
Page 388
John J. Stamos, State's Atty., Chicago (Edward J. Hladis, Chief of Civil Division, and Donald J. Veverka, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for appellant.Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago, for appellee.
SCHAEFER, Justice.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Cook County which found the respondent, Glenn Keith, in need of mental treatment and ordered him hospitalized at the Elgin State Hospital. A petition which alleged that he was in need of mental treatment and requested his emergency admission to a mental hospital was filed by his son. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, chap. 91 1/2, pars. 8--1 through 8--6.) The public defender, representing the respondent, requested a jury trial. Section 8--6 of the Mental Health Code provided for a jury 'of six persons, at least one of whom shall be a physician if the allegation is one of need of mental treatment, * * *.' (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, chap. 91 1/2, par. 8--6; cf. 1967, chap. 91 1/2, par. 8--6.) The respondent's attorney moved to exclude the physician from the jury on the ground that the statutory requirement is unconstitutional. The motion was overruled. At the trial the assistant State's Attorney called the respondent, over objection, as an adverse witness. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, chap. 110, par. 60.) A psychiatrist who had examined him also testified, and the jury found that the respondent was in need of [38 Ill.2d 407] mental treatment. The court ordered him committed to the Elgin State Hospital.
The respondent does not object to the statutory provision for a jury of six, but he asserts that the requirement that one of the six be a physician deprived him of the jury trial guaranteed by section 5, of article II of the constitution of Illinois, S.H.A., and also deprived him of the due process guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. He also contends that the trial court erred in compelling him to testify over his objection.
The respondent does not contend that a right to a jury trial existed at common law in mental commitment cases. He asserts, nevertheless, that the constitution of Illinois grants him that right. To establish it he points to certain statutes enacted before 1848 which, at least in some situations, provided that mental condition should be determined by a jury in the circuit court. These statutes, he contends, were elevated to constitutional status by section 6 of article XIII of the constitution of 1848, which provided 'the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.' We do not analyze the provisions of the various statutes relating to mentally disabled persons (see e.g. Revised Statutes, 1845, chap. L) for despite changes in the wording of the three constitutions of Illinois, the scope of the constitutional right of trial by jury has remained unchanged. 'The constitution of 1818 provided that 'the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate;' that of 1848, that 'the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate and shall extend to all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy;' and that of 1870, that 'the right of trial by jury, as heretofore enjoyed, shall remain inviolate, but the trial of civil cases, before justices of the peace, by a jury of less than twelve men, may be authorized by law.' * * * The constitutional provisions we have cited were designed simply to secure the right of trial by jury in all tribunals exercising common law jurisdiction, as it had theretofore been enjoyed. It was not intended[38 Ill.2d 408] to confer the right in any class of cases where it had not previously existed. Nor was it intended to introduce it into special summary jurisdictions unknown to the common law, and which do not provide for that mode of
Page...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Director, Patuxent Inst., No. 115
...may be incarcerated in a state psychiatric institution for an indefinite period, possibly for life.' 2 Cf., e. g., People v. Keith, 38 Ill.2d 405, 231 N.E.2d 387, 390 (1967), suggesting the inapplicability of the privilege under such 3 The standard for deciding whether a mentally ill person......
-
Interstate Bankers Cas. Co. v. Hernandez, No. 1–12–3035.
...not intended to guarantee trial by jury in special or statutory proceedings unknown to the common law.” ’ People ex rel. Keith v. Keith, 38 Ill.2d 405, 408 [231 N.E.2d 387] (1967), quoting People v. Niesman, 356 Ill. 322, 327 [190 N.E. 668] (1934).” (Emphasis omitted.) Reed, 188 Ill.2d at 1......
-
Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., No. 75013
...to guarantee trial by jury in special or statutory proceedings unknown to the common law.' " People ex rel. Keith v. Keith (1967), 38 Ill.2d 405, 408, 231 N.E.2d 387, quoting People v. Niesman (1934), 356 Ill. 322, 327, 190 N.E. On the other hand, the Federal Constitution provides: "In Suit......
-
People v. Redd, No. 62053
...the compulsory disclosure of facts tending to establish criminal liability." (People [135 Ill.2d 304] ex rel. Keith v. Keith (1967), 38 Ill.2d 405, 410, 231 N.E.2d 387.) A witness in a criminal case has the privilege to refuse to answer questions which tend to incriminate him. The protectio......
-
Williams v. Director, Patuxent Inst., No. 115
...may be incarcerated in a state psychiatric institution for an indefinite period, possibly for life.' 2 Cf., e. g., People v. Keith, 38 Ill.2d 405, 231 N.E.2d 387, 390 (1967), suggesting the inapplicability of the privilege under such 3 The standard for deciding whether a mentally ill person......
-
Interstate Bankers Cas. Co. v. Hernandez, No. 1–12–3035.
...not intended to guarantee trial by jury in special or statutory proceedings unknown to the common law.” ’ People ex rel. Keith v. Keith, 38 Ill.2d 405, 408 [231 N.E.2d 387] (1967), quoting People v. Niesman, 356 Ill. 322, 327 [190 N.E. 668] (1934).” (Emphasis omitted.) Reed, 188 Ill.2d at 1......
-
Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., No. 75013
...to guarantee trial by jury in special or statutory proceedings unknown to the common law.' " People ex rel. Keith v. Keith (1967), 38 Ill.2d 405, 408, 231 N.E.2d 387, quoting People v. Niesman (1934), 356 Ill. 322, 327, 190 N.E. On the other hand, the Federal Constitution provides: &qu......
-
People v. Redd, No. 62053
...the compulsory disclosure of facts tending to establish criminal liability." (People [135 Ill.2d 304] ex rel. Keith v. Keith (1967), 38 Ill.2d 405, 410, 231 N.E.2d 387.) A witness in a criminal case has the privilege to refuse to answer questions which tend to incriminate him. The prot......