People v. Goss
| Decision Date | 29 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35480,35480 |
| Citation | 170 N.E.2d 113,20 Ill.2d 224 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Thomas D. GOSS, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Sol R. Friedman and I. S. Friedman, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Benjamin S. Adamowski, State's Atty., of Chicago (Francis X. Riley, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, Thomas D. Goss, a television commentator and performer also known as Thomas Duggan, prosecutes this writ of error to review a judgment of the superior court of Cook County finding him guilty of contempt and sentencing him to ten days in jail and a fine of $100. The present writ comes as a sequal to People v. Goss, 10 Ill.2d 533, 141 N.E.2d 385, where the pertinent facts may be found and wherein we reversed an identical judgment and remanded the cause for a new hearing. In the prior review, however, all substantive and constitutional issues raised were resolved and decided against plaintiff in error on the ground that his telecasted utterances created a clear and present danger to the administration of justice in a cause then pending in the superior court, and our reversal and remandment was predicated solely upon the basis of our finding that the trial court had erred in refusing to grant plaintiff in error a change of venue.
After remandment, on March 30, 1959, the cause was eventually set for hearing before Judge William V. Brothers. On July 19, 1959, however, plaintiff in error filed a petition for change of venue in which he listed the names of 49 judges, including judge Brothers and Judge Ezra Clark, and stated he feared he would not get a fair trial if the hearing on the merits was before any of the judges named. This petition was denied by Judge Brothers, whereupon plaintiff in error immediately filed a second petition, supported by affidavits, charging Judge Brothers with bias and prejudice and praying that the cause be transferred to the executive committee for reassignment to another judge. The latter petition was allowed and the cause was reassigned to and ultimately heard by Judge Clark. At the new hearing it was stipulated that the record in the original proceeding would stand as evidence in the second hearing, and that counsel would be permitted to make such offers of proof as they desired. The People offered no additional evidence. Plaintiff in error, however, again testified, and called several witnesses as well, for a stated purpose of proving the truth of certain utterances he had made. See 10 Ill.2d 533, at page 537, 141 N.E.2d 385.
Although not assigned as a point relied upon for reversal, a statement is made in plaintiff in error's argument that: 'The trial court blocked all efforts to introduce such evidence.' No specific rulings of the court on particular evidence has been brought to our attention, nor have we been cited authority for the competency of the evidence involved, thus we may consider the point waived even if we assume it was properly presented for review. It is no part of this court's duties or functions to search for errors or, of its own motion, to enter upon an investigation of the record in order to find matter upon which to base a judgment of reversal. People v. Foster, 288 Ill. 371, 123 N.E. 534. The rules and decisions of this court firmly establish that, upon review, the ruling of the trial court and the error therein must be pointed out specifically, and the claim of error backed up by citation of authority. People v. Kelly, 404 Ill. 281, 89 N.E.2d 27; People v. Shines, 394 Ill. 428, 68 N.E.2d 911; 15 I.L.P. Criminal Law § 846.
At the conclusion of all the evidence the court made extensive findings, which plaintiff in error has failed to abstract, and entered a judgment of guilty and imposed sentence as heretofore described. In the brief filed in this court, plaintiff in error, using word for word, point for point and authority for authority, has assigned as grounds for reversal each and every point which, on the basis of substantially the same record, was assigned and decided adversely to him on the previous review. No new argument or authority has been presented in support of such points. Indeed, the present brief does no more than to adopt the argument of the former brief, nor is there any claim that the additional evidence adduce at the second hearing serves in any way to alter the result we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Norcutt
...of judges that may be named in a case having but one defendant. (People v. Chambers, 9 Ill.2d 83, 87, 136 N.E.2d 812; People v. Goss, 20 Ill.2d 224, 170 N.E.2d 113; People v. Myers, 35 Ill.2d 311, 220 N.E.2d 297.) We conclude, therefore, that the petition for change of venue was properly Th......
-
People v. Tucker
...cannot be read so as to contravene its express provisions and the applicants are held to the statutory requirements. People v. Goss, 20 Ill.2d 224, 170 N.E.2d 113, cert. den. 365 U.S. 881, 81 S.Ct. 1029, 6 L.Ed.2d 192 (1961). The requirements for a hearing under Section 114--5(c) of the Cod......
-
Rosewood Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 56201
...of the motion. (See People v. Myers, 35 Ill.2d 311, 220 N.E.2d 297; People v. Chambers, 9 Ill.2d 83, 136 N.E.2d 812; People v. Goss, 20 Ill.2d 224, 170 N.E.2d 113.) Since this is a procedural question based upon analogous rights, we can see no cogent reason to treat such motions differently......
-
Rosewood Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
...cannot be construed so as to contravene the express provisions of the statute, and the applicants are bound thereby. (People v. Goss, 20 Ill.2d 224, 170 N.E.2d 113.) Clearly the statute in question authorizes an absolute right to a change of venue from a single judge based on the general al......