People v. Berry

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: STONE
• Citation: People v. Berry, 309 Ill. 511, 141 N.E. 132 (Ill. 1923)
• Decision Date: 20 October 1923
• Docket Number: No. 15337.,15337.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BERRY.

309 Ill. 511

141 N.E. 132

PEOPLE

v.BERRY.

No. 15337.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 20, 1923.

Error to Circuit Court, Marion County; F. R. Dove, Judge.

Rollie Berry was convicted of perjury, and he brings error.

Affirmed.James H. Smith, of Flora, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Charles F. Dew, State's Atty., of Centralia, and Floyd E. Britton, of Springfield, for the people.

STONE, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the circuit court of Marion county of the crime of perjury. He brings the cause here for review, and urges three points: (1) The insufficiency of the indictment; (2) the erroneous rulings of the court on the admissibility of evidence; and (3) error of the court in refusing his fifteenth instruction.

It is not contended that the evidence does not justify the verdict of the jury. The indictment consists of three counts. The first count charges that at a trial between the people and Ed. Hall and Lex Hall upon an indictment charging robbery of a bank of Iuka, Ill, it became and was a material issue whether Ed. Hall was, in fact, in the village of Iuka and committed the robbery complained of in the indictment; that the plaintiff in error was a witness for Ed. Hall, and testified, ‘among other things, in substance and effect, the following, that is to say: That said Ed. Hall on the night of said day, at 11:17, was a passenger upon the train at Iola, Ill., bound for Flora, Ill., and that the witness saw him on said train at said time.’ The count charges that this testimony was false.

The second count is in substance the same as the first, and charges, in addition, that in the trial of the case of People v. Hall one of the defenses relied upon by Hall was an alibi-i.e., that he was not in Iuka on the day of the robbery, but was in the vicinity of Taylorville, Ill., 100 miles away, and on the night of the day of the robbery became a passenger on a train of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company at Taylorville, and that to sustain the alibi of Hall, said Berry, on the trial of the issue as to the alibi, willfully, falsely, and corruptly did swear and testify that he was a passenger on said train on the evening of the day of the robbery and saw Hall on the train.

The third count alleges that in the trial of Hall it became and was an issue whether Hall was one of the parties who committed the robbery in Iuka at the hour of 3:45 in the afternoon of the 20th day of December, 1921, and that the plaintiff in error on the trial of said issue ‘did feloniously, willfully, and corruptly swear and testify, among other things, in substance and to the effect as follows; that is to say,’ etc. Thereupon follows the charge that plaintiff in error did swear that he saw Hall on the train on the evening of the 20th of December, 1921, and that such testimony was false.

Plaintiff in error contends that the indictment does not sufficiently set out the crime charged, or show that the issue concerning which plaintiff in error testified was a material issue. The indictment charges the testimony to be false and that it was material to the issue on the trial. Under section 227 of the Criminal Code (Hurd's Rev. St. 1921, c. 38) an indictment for perjury or subornation of perjury is sufficient, if it sets forth the substance of the offense charged, stating the court or officer before which or whom the oath or affirmation was taken, that such court or officer had authority to administer oaths, and that the testimony charged to have been given was false. People v. Miller, 264 Ill. 148, 106 N. E. 191, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1240;People v. Ashbrook, 276 Ill. 382, 114 N. E. 922. An indictment may show the materialityof the testimony on which perjury is assigned, either by setting forth the issue and the sworn statement, so that ...