People v. Hallberg

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: VICKERS
• Citation: People v. Hallberg, 259 Ill. 502, 102 N.E. 1005 (Ill. 1913)
• Decision Date: 28 October 1913
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HALLBERG.

259 Ill. 502

102 N.E. 1005

PEOPLE

v.HALLBERG.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 28, 1913.

Error to Circuit Court, Winnebago County; Arthur H. Frost, Judge.

Wallace Hallberg was convicted of robbery, and he brings error. Reversed and remanded.B. A. Knight, of Rockford, for plaintiff in error.

P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., Gust E. Johnson, State's Atty., of Rockford, and Arthur R. Roy, of Quincy, for the People.

VICKERS, J.

Plaintiff in error, Wallace Hallberg, was indicted, tried, and convicted in the circuit court of Winnebago county for the crime of robbery. The indictment originally consisted of two counts. The second count was quashed on motion and the case was submitted to the jury upon the first count, alone. The count upon which plaintiff in error was convicted, omitting the caption, is as follows: ‘That Wallace Hallberg and Howard Bengtson, late of said county, on the tenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight, at and within the said county of Winnebago, in and upon one Albert Lawson feloniously, unlawfully and violently did make an assault and the said Albert Lawson in bodily fear and danger of his life then and there feloniously, unlawfully, and violently did put, and divers pieces of the legal paper currency of the United States of America, the denomination and further description of which legal paper currency is to the grand jury here unknown, and of the value of $600, and divers pieces of the legal coin currency of the United States of America, the more particular description of which is to the grand jury here unknown, and of the value of $100, of the goods, chattels and moneys of the said Albert Lawson, from the person and against the will of the said Albert Lawson then and there feloniously, unlawfully, and violently did rob, steal, take, and carry away, the said Wallace Hallberg and the said Howard Bengtson since said tenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight, not being a resident within the state of Illinois, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the same people of the state of Illinois.’

[1] The only error relied on for a reversal is the overruling of the motion to quash the above count in the indictment. This indictment was returned by the grand jury at the April term of court in the year 1912. The date stated in the indictment on which the offense is alleged to have been committed is December 10, 1908. It therefore appears on the face of the indictment that the offense is barred by the statute of limitations unless the averment ‘the said WallaceHallberg and the said Howard Bengtson since said tenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight, not being a resident within the state of Illinois,’ is sufficient, under paragraph 317 of the Criminal Code (Hurd's Rev. St. 1911, c. 38), to bring the case within the exception there stated. Our statute fixes three years as the limitation within which an indictment for robbery must be found, but paragraph 317 provides as follows: ‘No period during which the party charged was not usually and publicly resident within this state shall be included in the time of limitation.’ An indictment which on its face shows that the offense charged is barred by the statute of limitations is insufficient under the rule established in this state, and the question is properly raised by a motion to quash. Garrison v. People, 87 Ill. 96;Lamkin v. People, 94 Ill. 501.

[2] It is first objected that the indictment in question omits the words of the statute, ‘usually and publicly.’ We do not regard this objection as of any force. An averment that one is not a resident of the state...