People v. Bradley
Decision Date | 19 January 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 33833,33833 |
Citation | 131 N.E.2d 538,56 A.L.R.2d 832,7 Ill.2d 619 |
Parties | , 56 A.L.R.2d 832 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error. v. Paul BRADLEY, Plaintiff in Error. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
C. E. Tate, Champaign, for plaintiff in error.
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and John J. Bresee, State's Atty., Champaign (John L. Davidson, Jr., Springfield, Fred G. Leach, Decatur, Edwin A. Strugala, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
The single issue in this case is the validity of an amendment to the Criminal Code which authorizes the prosecution of felonies by information if the defendant waives his right to be prosecuted by indictment. As amended in 1955, section 3 of division X provides: (Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 38, par. 702.) Prior to the amendment the statute required that all felonies should be prosecuted by indictment. Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 38, par. 702.
The defendant, Paul Bradley, was charged before a justice of the peace with the crime of assault with intent to commit armed robbery. On August 23, 1955, he appeared with his counsel before the circuit court of Champaign County. After he was fully advised by the court of his right to have the grand jury act on the matter before he could be prosecuted, he filed his written waiver of prosecution by indictment and his consent to a proceeding by information. An information filed the same day charged him with assault with intent to commit robbery. He pleaded guilty, and the plea was accepted when he persisted in if after he was advised of his right to a trial by jury and of the possible consequences of his plea. By motion in arrest of judgment he challenged the constitutionality of the amended statute. The motion was denied and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of one to four years.
Upon this writ of error defendant contends that the amended statute violates section 8 of article II of the constitution of Illinois, S.H.A., and the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. Section 8 of article II of our constitution is as follows: 'No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine, or imprisonment otherwise than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army and navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger: Provided, that the grand jury may be abolished by law in all cases.'
Considering first the attack based upon the constitution of Illinois, it is important to note that no question arises under the proviso of section 8 of article II. The grand jury is not abolished in any case. Every accused person still enjoys an absolute right to be prosecuted by indictment. Only if he knowingly waives that right can he be prosecuted by information.
The question, then, is whether the constitutional requirement of an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution for a felony bars a statute which permits a prosecution upon information if the accused so elects. This question has not previously been before the court. We have held, however, in accordance with the weight of authority elsewhere, that the right of trial by jury in criminal cases is a personal right which may be waived, People ex rel. Swanson v. Fisher, 340 Ill. 250, 172 N.E. 722; People v. Spegal, 5 Ill.2d 211, 125 N.E.2d 468; Cf. Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854, even though section 5 of article II of the constitution provides that the right of trial by jury 'shall remain inviolate.' Because of the close kinship between the problems involved in the waiver of trial by jury and those involved in the waiver of indictment by a grand jury, we turn at once to a consideration of the case which is chiefly relied upon to establish the invalidity of the statute.
In People ex rel. Battista v. Christian, 249 N.Y. 314, 318-319, 164 N.E. 111, 112, 61 A.L.R. 793, the Court of Appeals held void a statute which authorized an information in a criminal case when the constitution required an indictment by a grand jury, upon the ground that a In the Battista case, the court relied largely upon Cancemi v. People, 18 N.Y. 128, which had held that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King v. State
...110 U.S. 516, 4 S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884); Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 35 S.Ct. 583, 59 L.Ed. 969 (1915); People v. Bradley, 7 Ill.2d 619, 131 N.E.2d 538 (1956); Heath v. State, 198 Md. 455, 85 A.2d 43 (1951). In Martin v. Beto, 397 F.2d 741, 746 (5th Cir. 1968), it was stated: 'In ......
-
People v. Erickson
...of the constitutional right to a trial by jury. People v. Steenbergen (1964), 31 Ill.2d 615, 617, 203 N.E.2d 404; People v. Bradley (1956), 7 Ill.2d 619, 622-23, 131 N.E.2d 538, quoting Patton v. United States (1930), 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. We believe that the same principle g......
-
Cates v. Cates
... ... People v. Palmer (1984), 104 Ill.2d 340, 84 Ill.Dec. 658, 472 N.E.2d 795 (precedential scope of decision limited to facts before court).) The Nix court ... ...
-
Kennedy v. State
...amended § 8. The Alabama bill of rights prohibits an information in felony cases except as there stated. Hence, People v. Bradley, 7 Ill.2d 619, 131 N.E.2d 538, 56 A.L.R.2d 832, is to be distinguished.5 See footnote ...