People v. Coleson
| Decision Date | 28 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--105,74--105 |
| Citation | 25 Ill.App.3d 43,322 N.E.2d 600 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James COLESON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Paul Bradley, First Deputy Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
W. C. Spomer, State's Atty., Cairo, in and for Alexander County, for plaintiff-appellee.
PETITION FOR REHEARING
James Coleson, the appellant, was prosecuted by indictment for the offenses of perjury and receiving illegal public aid. A jury found him guilty on two counts of perjury, and he was sentenced to two three-year probationary terms to run concurrently, was ordered to pay a fine of $500, and was sentenced to one year's periodic imprisonment to be served on weekends.
Appellant, a public aid recipient in Alexander County, made an application for money under the Aid to Dependent Children program. In connection with this application questions had to be answered regarding eligibility for public assistance. Also, he was asked to supply information for a redetermination of eligibility by ascertaining whether assets, money, or other facts had changed since the original application. A caseworker for the Department of Public Aid in Cairo testified that she was acquainted with the appellant and his wife, that she was acquainted with their signatures, and that she saw them afix their signatures to the application for Aid to Dependent Children. She also testified that in her opinion their signatures appeared on the redetermination form. The caseworker further testified that she had read the entire document to the appellant and his wife, including the declaration that it was made under penalties of perjury.
The State maintained that the appellant made false statements about his income as a result of which he illegally received public assistance and subjected himself to the penalty of perjury. The appellant did not present any evidence. At the close of the evidence he was found guilty on two counts of perjury and sentenced.
The issues presented on appeal are whether the indictment was sufficient to charge the offense of perjury, whether the prosecutor's reference in the closing argument to the appellant's failure to testify constituted reversible error, whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive.
We will not consider the last three issues since the conviction must be reversed on other grounds.
Appellant contends that the indictment was insufficient because there was no allegation that he was under oath at the time of making the allegedly false statements, because the specific statements said to be false were not alleged in the indictment, and because count 3 of the indictment was internally inconsistent in that it alleged facts not constituting a violation of the statutes cited.
We do not agree with appellant's first contention that the perjury counts were defective because they failed to allege that he was under oath at the time he made the allegedly false statements. Section 11--21 of the Illinois Public Aid Code (Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 23) provides that:
'If an applicant makes and subscribes an application form under Section 11--15 which contains a written declaration that it is made under penalties of perjury, knowing it to be false, incorrect, or incomplete in respect to any material statement or representation bearing on his eligibility, income of resources, the offender shall be subject to the penalties of perjury as provided in Section 32--2 of the 'Criminal Code of 1961', approved July 28, 1961, as amended.'
Section 11--15 of the Public Aid Code, which specifies application requirements, requires the application to contain a written declaration as follows:
'I Declare under penalties of perjury that I have examined this form and all accompanying statements or documents pertaining to the income and resources of myself or any member...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nimmo v. State
...intent. But such a phrase demonstrates the intent of the legislature to have it serve as an oath or affirmation. People v. Coleson, 25 Ill.App.3d 43, 322 N.E.2d 600, 602 (1975). Section 6-8-102, Supra, serves as a legislative warning that the execution and filing of such vouchers is not a c......
-
People v. Westendorf
...either verbatim or in substance, is insufficient to charge the crime. People v. Aud, 52 Ill.2d 368, 288 N.E.2d 453; People v. Coleson, 25 Ill.App.3d 43, 322 N.E.2d 600; Paxton v. Walters, 72 Ariz. 120, 231 P.2d 458; 70 C.J.S. Perjury § 43; 60 AmJur.2d Perjury § Although no Colorado cases sp......
- People v. Simpson