People v. Buckman
| Decision Date | 05 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 22442.,22442. |
| Citation | 192 N.E. 349,357 Ill. 407 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BUCKMAN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Thomas J. Lynch, Judge.
Rogers Buckman was convicted of larceny, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Joseph Lustfield and Herman J. Shaprin, both of Chicago (Ode L. Rankin, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, J. Albert Woll, and Henry E. Seyfarth, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Rogers Buckman, was indicted, with Raymond Banks, by the September, 1933, grand jury in Cook county. They were charged with larceny of an automobile, the property of Shadwick A. Barry and Marion Barry, co-owners, and were found guilty by a jury November 22, 1933, in the criminal court. On January 8, 1934, Buckman was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of from one to twenty years. The case is here by writ of error.
Buckman urges that the evidence does not support the verdict. He contends that the people failed to prove the co-ownership of the automobile as alleged in the indictment. He also says that his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The bill of exceptions only shows a motion for new trial. The ruling on that motion is included in the common law record, which is certified to by the circuit clerk. In order to bring before this court for review the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict, the evidence, the motion for a new trial, and the order overruling it must all be included in a bill of exceptions certified by the trial judge. People v. Reese, 355 Ill. 562, 189 N. E. 876;People v. Leonardi, 338 Ill. 177, 170 N. E. 218;People v. Gabrys, 329 Ill. 101, 160 N. E. 138. Since no question argued has been properly preserved there is nothing before us to warrant reversing the case.
The judgment of the criminal court of Cook county is accordingly affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Majczek
...bill of exceptions in order to save for review the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. People v. Buckman, 357 Ill. 407, 192 N. E. 349;People v. Reese, 355 Ill. 562, 189 N. E. 876;People v. Leonardi, 338 Ill. 177, 170 N. E. 218;People v. Gabrys, 329 Ill. 101, ......
-
People v. Yetter
...a bill of exceptions or a stenographic report certified by the trial judge. People v. Zaransky, 362 Ill. 76, 199 N.E. 104;People v. Buckman, 357 Ill. 407, 192 N.E. 349;People v. Reese, 355 Ill. 562, 189 N.E. 876;People v. Hobbs, 352 Ill. 224, 185 N.E. 610;People v. Leonardi, 338 Ill. 177, 1......
-
People v. Pamilio
...this on review, as his motion for a new trial is contained in the common-law record and not in the bill of exceptions. People v. Buckman, 357 Ill. 407, 192 N. E. 349. The motion for leave to supply this omission is denied, as a copy thereof was not served on opposing counsel in accordance w......
-
People v. Abelsky, 22844.
... ... People v. Coniglio, 353 Ill. 643, 187 N. E. 799. Moreover, no motion for a new trial appears in the bill of exceptions, and defendant is in no position to raise any question as to the weight of the evidence. People v. Buckman, 357 Ill. 407, 192 N. E. 349;People v. Reese, 355 Ill. 562, 189 N. E. 876.The judgment of the criminal court of Cook county is affirmed.Judgment ... ...