People v. Fognini
| Decision Date | 14 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 25611.,25611. |
| Citation | 28 N.E.2d 95,374 Ill. 161 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. FOGNINI et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Winnebago County; Thomas E. Gill, Judge.
Edward Fognini and Gerardo Perez were convicted of larceny, and they bring error.
Reversed and remanded.B. Jay Knight, J. E. Goembel, and Frederick H. Haye, all of Rockford, for plaintiffs in error.
John E. Cassidy, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Nash, State's Atty., of Rockford, and A. B. Dennis, of Springfield (A. B. Louison and Wm. H. Gates, both of Rockford, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Edward Fognini, Gerardo Perez and Lillian Fognini, were jointly indicted in the circuit court of Winnebago county, charged with the larceny of two suits of clothes. After a motion to quash the indictment had been overruled they were tried by a jury which found Lillian Fognini not guilty, the other two defendants guilty, as charged in the indictment, and the value of the property stolen to be the sum of $30. On this verdict they were sentenced to the penitentiary and have sued out this writ of error to reverse and judgment so entered against them.
Our attention is first directed to the question raised by the motion to quash the indictment which was based upon a theory that it was void because there were no women on the grand jury by which it was returned. The record shows that this grand jury was certified by the board of supervisors of Winnebago county on August 1, 1939, from a list of names submitted by the various supervisors to the grand jury committee of the board. The names approved by the grand jury committee were duly certified.
The qualifications and manner of selecting jurors are controlled by the Jurors Act, which is chapter 78 of our statutes, Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, and this chapter contains the complete statutory requirements. People v. Mack, 367 Ill. 481, 11 N.E.2d 965. On May 12, 1939, section 1 of this act was amended by the addition of the words ‘of each sex’ and, as so amended, requires the county board in each year to ‘make a list of sufficient number, not less than one-tenth of the legal voters of each sex of each town or precinct in the county, giving the place of residence of each name on the list, to be known as a jury list.’ The act, in so far as it is applicable to counties having a population of less than 250,000, was not otherwise amended. Section 2 of the act, which prescribes the qualifications of jurors, remains unchanged, and those qualifications are that the juror be an inhabitant of the town or precinct from which he is selected, between the ages of twenty-one and sixty-five, in the possession of his natural faculties, neither infirm nor decrepit, free from all legal exceptions, of fair character, approved integrity, sound judgment, well informed and having an understanding of the English language.
Section 9 of the act, which has not been amended, prescribes the method of selecting a grand jury which, in counties having a population of less than 250,000, is to be done by the board of supervisors, and Winnebago county is in this class. The only mandatory provision of section 9 appears to be that the board shall select twenty-three persons possessing the qualifications provided in section 2, which are above enumerated, and as near as may be a proportionate number from each town or precinct in the county. Other provisions of the Jurors Act are not here pertinent.
Plaintiffs in error insist that this case is one involving discrimination because of the failure to have women on this grand jury although it is not shown, nor is there any effort made to show, that they were in any degree nor to any extent prejudiced by that fact. Their principal reliance is placed upon the so-called Scottsboro case, Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587, 55 S.Ct. 579, 79 L.Ed. 1074, but that case is so far different from this one as to be of no value to us on the question we are now deciding. In that case it was shown not only that the defendants were negroes, but that for many years there had been definite and deliberate exclusion of all negroes from all jury lists in the counties involved. In the case now before us the individual members of the board of supervisors turned over to the jury committee of the whole board the names of persons from their respective towns...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Hanes
...399 (1968); Lee v. People, 137 Colo. 465, 326 P.2d 660 (1958); State v. White, 37 Conn.Sup. 796, 437 A.2d 145 (1981); People v. Fognini, 374 Ill. 161, 28 N.E.2d 95 (1940); State v. McDonald, 312 Minn. 320, 251 N.W.2d 705 (1977); State v. Moody, supra; State v. King, 164 N.J.Super. 330, 396 ......
-
State v. Coleman
... ... The merchandise might have been 1 day from a bargain basement, a sale, or disposal in favor of newer styles or different seasonal wear. See People v. Fognini, 374 Ill. 161, 28 N.E.2d 95 (1940) (testimony regarding value of two stolen suits held insufficient to prove market value where suits had ... ...
-
People v. Peters
...on August 1, 1939, from a duly certified list, was the subject of a motion to quash on substantially similar grounds in People v. Fognini, 374 Ill. 161, 28 N.E.2d 95. The validity of the indictment was upheld, notwithstanding the fact that no women were called. We decided that the lack of w......
-
People v. Clutts
...should allege the value of the subject of the larceny when this is material. Larceny, 25 Ill.L. & Pr. § 24 (1956); People v. Fognini, 374 Ill. 161, 28 N.E.2d 95. While the Illinois Courts have not considered the precise question presented by the case at bar, the Texas Court of Criminal Appe......