People v. Clarke
| Decision Date | 27 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 31599,31599 |
| Citation | 407 Ill. 353,95 N.E.2d 425 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CLARKE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
George M. Crane and Lawrence A. Berman, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error
Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., and John S. Boyle, State's Atty, of Chicago (John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, E. F. Welter, and Arthur F. Manning, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
This case comes here on writ of error to the Appellate Court for the First District, 340 Ill.App. 207, 91 N.E.2d 626, which affirmed the judgment of the municipal court of Chicago, finding plaintiff in error, Frank Clarke, guilty of the criminal offense of 'attempt extortion,' in violation of section 93 of division I of the Criminal Code. (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1945, chap. 38, par. 240.) After waiving a jury trial, he was tried by the court, found guilty and sentenced to serve a term of 30 days in the House of Correction and to pay a fine of $100 and costs. At the close of the State's evidence in the municipal court, counsel for plaintiff in error made a motion to find the defendant not guilty on the ground of variance and that the information did not charge a crime. Over objection of defendant, the court allowed the State's Attorney to amend the information by physically striking out the words 'perversion,' etc., and to insert over the word 'perversion' the words 'crime against nature.' The following shows the information, as amended, with the alterations made: 'Did then and there unlawfully and wilfully verbally, maliciously threaten to accuse * * * (informant) of a crime against Nature: certain crime To Wit: with intent then and there to extort from the said * * * (informant) a certain sum of money, To Wit ($50.00) Lawful money of the United States of America, in violation of Par. 240, Chap. 38, 1945 Illinois Revised Statutes.'
This left an amended information charging the defendant with a threat to charge the informant with the crime against nature with intent to extort $50.00 from him, the said informant. The defendant objected to the amendment and to proceeding with the trial. The court overruled the objection and ordered the State's Attorney to proceed. The State rested again.
The plaintiff in error assigns errors as follows: (1) The evidence failed to establish the crime charged; and, (2) the amendment of the information was an abandonment of the original and therefore it could not support the proceedings without reverification, rearraignment, replea, rewaiver of trial by jury, exactly as if a new information had been filed.
We have gone over this record as to the first contention, and, without going into sordid details, we are of the opinion the evidence is sufficient to prove the truth of the charge as set out in the information in both its forms.
The second contention presents the principal and crucial question in the case as to whether the information, as amended, is sufficient to support the proceedings below. Plaintiff in error contends that upon amendment the original information was abandoned and the information, as amended, stood as a new information requiring the same procedure as though it were an original information. It is not pointed out in what particular the defendant here was prejudiced by proceeding upon the amended information, but the contention, in substance, is that, as a matter of law, the amended information is insufficient to support the proceedings and judgment.
Plaintiff in error relies heavily upon the case of People v. Zlotnicki, 246 Ill. 185, 92 N.E. 813. In that case in information was filed charging a libel, but included no language from which the nature of the libel could be ascertained. On motion to quash, the State's Attorney obtained leave to, and did, file an amended information not verified as amended. A motion to quash the amended information was overruled. The court there held that the original information was abandoned by filing the amended one, and that the verification of the original did not extend to the amended information, and that the latter should have been quashed on motion. The basis of that decision was that the original information was totally insufficient to charge a crime and that its verification could not extend to an amendment containing averments of which there was not even a suggestion in the original.
Plaintiff in error also points to the case of People v. Economakas, 278 Ill.App. 265, where the court there reversed a conviction because there was no plea to the amended information. In that case the amendment included the addition of two counts charging offenses not set out in the original. The holding there was that the pleas entered on the original could not extend to the new counts added by the amendment.
It is the contention of the People that it is not error to proceed upon an information where the amendment is by interlineations and does not materially injure the defendant. They cite the case of Truitt v. People, 88 Ill. 518, where this court quoted with approval from Rex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. 320 (2527): Other cases holding that an information can be amended are Long v. People, 135 Ill. 435, 25 N.E. 851, 10 L.R.A. 48, and People v. Wancoski, 209 Ill.App. 47.
It seems to be well settled that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...trial may be had on the original information as amended without a renewal of the formalities originally observed. (People v. Clarke (1950), 407 Ill. 353, 95 N.E.2d 425; People v. Troutt (1977), 51 Ill.App.3d 656, 9 Ill.Dec. 113, 366 N.E.2d 370.) The amendment of the information in this case......
-
People v. Troutt
...of an entirely different substance. 1 Despite defendant's objection, the change was made by interlineation. In People v. Clarke, 407 Ill. 353, 358, 95 N.E.2d 425, 428 (1950), the Supreme Court of Illinois, after a review of the authorities, stated the following rule: " * * * if the amendmen......
-
People v. Haney
...463, cert. denied 383 U.S. 910, 86 S.Ct. 895, 15 L.Ed.2d 665; People v. Vysther, 49 Ill.App.2d 223, 199 N.E.2d 668; People v. Clarke, 407 Ill. 353, 95 N.E.2d 425. And the courts will not make 'so technical a construction of an indictment (or information) as to serve as a protection for the ......
-
People v. Smith
...it, and alleges every substantial element of the offense as defined by statute, the information is sufficient.' People v. Clarke, 407 Ill. 353, 359, 95 N.E.2d 425, 428 (1950). After an examination of the indictment in the light of the authorities cited, we conclude that while it does not co......