People v. Hall
| Decision Date | 20 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 35007,35007 |
| Citation | 157 N.E.2d 26,16 Ill.2d 223 |
| Parties | , 75 A.L.R.2d 541 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, v. Willie HALL, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and Alton A. Greer, State's Attorney, Shawneetown (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, and William H. South, Carmi, of counsel), for the People.
Joseph L. Bartley, Shawneetown, for defendant in error.
A special grand jury was duly convened by the circuit court of Gallatin County during its October, 1956, term. This grand jury returned an indictment against the defendant, Willie Hall, for the crime of assault with intent to commit murder. The grand jury returned this indictment on April 1, 1957, which was the day following the expiration of said October term of court, and the first day of the succeeding term, namely the April, 1957, term. Defendant moved to quash the indictment for the reason that the said grand jury expired and ceased to exist on the 30th or 31st day of March, and therefore the indictment was null and void. The trial court sustained the motion and quashed the indictment. The People bring this writ of error to this court to review the order of the circuit court pursuant to statutes which provide that the People may sue out writs of error to review any order quashing an indictment, and that all writs of error in criminal cases above the grade of misdemeanors shall be taken directly to this court. Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 38 pars. 747 and 780 1/2.
By virtue of the statute relating to courts (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 37, par. 72.6), it is provided that terms of the circuit court of Gallatin County shall commence on the first Monday in April, June and October. It appears that the first Monday in April in 1957 was April 1, and therefore the said indictment was not returned until after the expiration of the October, 1956, term of said court.
The People contend that the indictment was not void, but valid, and that the circuit court was in error in quashing the indictment.
The People assert, and it is undisputed, that a grand jury is a constituent part of every court having general criminal jurisdiction; that such court has inherent power, independent of statute, to call, recess, discharge subject to recall, and to reconvene a special grand jury; and that when a grand jury has not completed its work during the term for which it was empaneled, the court may order the grand jury to continue its investigations over into a succeeding term. The defendant, however, contends that this special grand jury for the October term was not ordered by the court to continue over into the succeeding April term, thus its power had expired and the indictment in question was void.
The People finally contend that this special grand jury, convened at the October term, continued over into the succeeding April term of that court, and thereby became a de facto grand jury having full jurisdiction to return this indictment on April 1, 1957.
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pesner v. County Court of Rockland County
...133 Mich. 550, 95 N.W. 542; State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410, 217 N.W. 283; People v. Kaplan, 256 Mich. 36, 239 N.W. 349; People v. Hall, 16 Ill.2d 223, 157 N.E.2d 26; Buchler v. District Court of County of Arapahoe, 158 Colo. 205, 405 P.2d 950; State v. Brown, 195 Mo.App. 590, 194 S.W. Since......
-
Kortz v. State
...term of court only to consider matters which are already pending and under investigation by the grand jury. See, e.g., People v. Hall, 16 Ill.2d 223, 157 N.E.2d 26 (1959); Harrod v. Commonwealth, Ky., 253 S.W.2d 574 (1952); Shenker v. Harr, 332 Pa. 382, 2 A.2d 298 (1938); State v. Wescott, ......
-
Buchler v. District Court In and For Arapahoe County
...court. This doctrine, in its application to public officers and their acts, is well understood.' See also in this regard, People v. Hall, 16 Ill.2d 223, 157 N.E.2d 26; People v. Morgan, 133 Mich. 550, 95 N.W. 542; and State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410, 217 N.W. Buchler goes on to argue that th......
- People v. Zierlion