People v. Brown

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: KLINGBIEL
• Citation: People v. Brown, 122 N.E.2d 153, 3 Ill.2d 623 (Ill. 1954)
• Decision Date: 25 October 1954
• Docket Number: No. 33129,33129
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Albert BROWN, Plaintiff in Error.

Page 153

122 N.E.2d 153

3 Ill.2d 623

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Albert BROWN, Plaintiff in Error.

No. 33129.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 25, 1954.

Albert Brown, pro se.

Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and John T. Allen, State's Atty., Danville (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, George W. Schwaner, Jr., Springfield, Donald L. Merlie, and F. Daniel Welsch, Danville, of counsel), for the People.

KLINGBIEL, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Albert Brown, hereinafter called defendant, and one Dale Anthony were indicted in the circuit court of Vermilion County at the October Term, 1939, for the crime of burglary. After a trial by jury they were found guilty and were sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of one year to life. Appearing pro se, defendant brings the common-law record for review by writ of error. He alleges as error that the persons called to serve as grand jurors consisted only of men, and should have included persons of both sexes; that the indictment failed to set forth with particularity the 'goods and chattels' which it alleges he intended to steal; and that he was not given adequate time to prepare for trial.

The common-law record presented to this court fails to show that the grand jury did not include women; or that any objection was made by challenge to the array. Under such circumstances defendant is deemed to have waived any alleged impropriety in the selection of the grand jury. People v. White, 405 Ill. 152, 89 N.E.2d 813. It is a general rule that where there is nothing before the court except the common-law record, it must be taken as speaking the truth and cannot be contradicted. Before this court can consider alleged errors, defendant must have made a timely motion or objection to the trial court and, in case of unfavorable action, preserved in the record, by bill of exceptions, the proceedings had upon such objection. People v. Hambleton, 399 Ill. 388, 78 N.E.2d 293.

The indictment alleges that defendant and his co-defendant entered a described tool house building 'with intent then and there, therein feloniously and burglariously to steal, take and carry away divers goods and chattels of the said Lucien B. Dyer, doing business as Dyer Construction Co., then and there being found in the said tool house building.' Such allegations sufficiently charge the required intent. In an indictment for burglary it is unnecessary to name specifically the articles which the accused allegedly intended to steal. People v. Hoffman, 381 Ill. 460, 45 N.E.2d 874.

The next contention presented is that defendant was not allowed sufficient time to prepare for trial. The record discloses that on October 6, 1939, a bench warrant was issued for the arrest of Dale Anthony and defendant. The date of defendant's arrest does not appear, but the record recites that on October 24, 1939, he was...