People v. Amerman

• Decision Date: 30 November 1971
• Docket Number: No. 43743,43743
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Walter G. AMERMAN, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 353

279 N.E.2d 353

50 Ill.2d 196

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Walter G. AMERMAN, Appellant.

No. 43743.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 30, 1971.

Donald R. Mitchell, Murphysboro, and Wm. Kent Brandon, Carbondale, appointed by the court, for appellant.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield (Thomas J. Immel, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the People.

WARD, Justice.

The defendant, Dr. Walter G. Amerman, was fined $50 after he was found guilty in a bench trial in the circuit court of Jackson County on a charge of having possessed a pistol without having obtained a firearm owner's identification card from the Illinois Department of Law Enforcement in violation of the Firearm Owner's Identification Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, par. 83--1 et seq.

On appeal he contends that the Firearm Owner's Identification Act is unconstitutional as denying due process and equal protection of the law. He argues, too, that the statute is an improper exercise of the police power, as it is really a revenue measure subject to and here in violation of the uniformity provision of the constitution of Illinois.

Officers of the Murphysboro police department on May 30, 1970, observed the defendant using a pistol at target practice. A complaint against him was filed after Dr. Amerman told the officers that he had obtained the weapon from a German prisoner during World War II and advised them that he did not have an identification card issued under the Firearm Owner's Identification Act. At trial the defendant did not move to quash the complaint or make any other pretrial motion. In an opening statement his attorney told the court that the defendant's position was that 'this law is totally unconstitutional' and if found guilty the defendant intended to appeal the conviction. Thereafter there was no development of the question. There was no argument on it, no ruling by the trial court on it and no request for a ruling. The judgment makes no reference to it. There were no post-trial motions. The only mention of the question in the record is in the opening statement.

We cannot entertain this appeal. The rule is familiar that a nonjurisdictional question which has not been properly presented in the trial court and preserved for review will not be considered on appeal. (People v. Allen, 17 Ill.2d 55, 61, 160 N.E.2d 818.) This rule is, of course, applicable to constitutional questions. 'It is fundamental that the question of the constitutionality of a statute cannot be properly raised for the first time in a court of review, but must have been presented to the trial court and ruled upon by it, and the person challenging its validity must have preserved proper exceptions to such ruling. (Citations.)' People v. Brand, 415 Ill. 329, 337, 114 N.E.2d 370, 374; see also People v. Luckey, 42 Ill.2d 115, 245 N.E.2d 769; Van Meter v. Stout, 45 Ill.2d 7, 256 N.E.2d 784.

The charge in the opening statement that 'this law is totally unconstitutional' was obviously inadequate as a foundation for appeal.

The appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Jackson County is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

GOLDENHERSH, J., dissenting.

GOLDENHERSH, Justice (dissenting).

Quoting from People v. Brand, 415 Ill. 329, 114 N.E.2d 370, the majority dismisses the appeal on the ground that the question of the constitutionality of the statute was not adequately raised in the trial court nor properly preserved for review. An examination of Brand and the earlier opinions upon which it is based demonstrates that the 'fundamental' rule which it purports to state rests upon a defective foundation. The court relied upon People for Use of State Bd. of Health v. McCoy, 132 Ill. 138, 23 N.E. 344; Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R.R. Co. v. City of Ottawa, 165 Ill. 207, 46 N.E. 213; Mechanics' and Traders' Savings, Loan & Building Ass'n v. People ex rel. Auditor of Public Accounts, 184 Ill. 129, 56 N.E. 346; and Cummings v. People, 211 Ill. 392, 71 N.E. 1031. People for Use of State Bd. of Health v. McCoy involved no constitutional issue and was decided on the ground that a plea of Nil debet without submissions of propositions of law preserved no issue of law reviewable by this court. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R.R. Co. v. City of Ottawa involved no constitutional issue and was decided on the ground that in a case tried before the court without a jury, when no exceptions are taken to rulings on evidence and no written propositions of law are submitted by either party, no question of law was preserved for review. Mechanics' and Traders' Savings, Loan & Building Ass'n v. People ex rel. Auditor of Public Accounts, if relevant at all, is authority only for the proposition that: 'Where no objection is made in the trial court by a party in a civil case that he is deprived of his right by an unconstitutional law, it cannot be raised here.' (184 Ill. 129, 135, 56 N.E. 346, 348.) In support of this statement the opinion cites: Chiniquy v. People ex rel. Swigert, 78 Ill. 570, 577, in which the court refused to review a contention that a portion of a school tax was 'unconstitutional and void' for the reason that 'There is nothing, so far as we can see, in this record which shows that fact;' Pearson v. Zehr, 125 Ill. 573, 18 N.E. 204 which involved the question of whether, upon the issue presented, jurisdiction was properly in this or the appellate court; and Board of Supervisors of Lee County v. Commissioners of Highways, 164 Ill. 574, 575, 45 N.E. 983, 984, which, without citation of authority, holds that an attack on the constitutionality of a statute authorizing certain appropriations for bridge construction would not be reviewed because, 'The judgment of the trial court was not asked upon that question as a matter of law, by presenting a proposition to be held or refused, or in any other manner.'

In Cummings v. People the trial court at the request of the defendant held a statute valid, and on appeal the defendant argued that the statute was unconstitutional and void. This opinion relies upon Mechanics' and Traders' Savings, Loan & Building Ass'n v. People; People for Use of State Bd. of Health v. McCoy, and Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R.R. Co. v. City of Ottawa--clearly not in point.

In the majority opinion in People v. Luckey, 42 Ill.2d 115, 245 N.E.2d 769, also cited by the majority, the court relies upon People v. Hale, 31 Ill.2d 200, 201 N.E.2d 454; People v. Orr, 10 Ill.2d 95, 139 N.E.2d 212; People v. Cosper, 5 Ill.2d 97, 125 N.E.2d 60; People v. Brand, 415 Ill. 329, 114 N.E.2d 370; People v. Rohde, 403 Ill. 41, 85 N.E.2d 24; and People v. Dwyer, 397 Ill. 599, 74 N.E.2d 882. Hale relies upon Orr which in turn relies upon Cosper, Brand and Rohde, and Rohde relies upon Housing Authority v. Church of God, 401 Ill. 100, 81 N.E.2d 500 and People v. Brickey, 396 Ill. 140, 71 N.E.2d 157. Brickey involved the sufficiency of the record to vest jurisdiction in this court under then applicable requirements and the case was transferred to the appellate court. Housing Authority v. Church of God involved not...