People v. Handley
| Citation | 282 N.E.2d 131,51 Ill.2d 229 |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 43300,43300 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Gary HANDLEY et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Lawrence G. Martin, Chicago, for appellants.
Robert W. Gettleman, Thomas P. Luning, and William J. McNally, Chicago, for amici curiae.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert A. Novelle and Henry A. Hauser, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
Defendants, Gary Handley, William Slater, William Chavis, and Jerome Hardy were tried by a jury in the circuit court of Cook County and found guilty of the murder of Everett Weatherly, Jr. Defendants Chavis and Hardy were each sentenced to a term of 25 to 30 years in the penitentiary. Defendants Handley and Slater, who were minors, were each committed to the Illinois Youth Commission for like terms. Three other co-defendants with whom they were jointly tried were acquitted.
Testimony of the People's witnesses established that at approximately 11:30 P.M. on May 4, 1969, the victim, Everett Weatherly, Jr., was severely beaten by the defendants in the presence of a large group of young people in front of the Starlite Grocerland store in the 3500 block of South State Street in Chicago. Blows were inflicted by fists, a bottle and a bicycle frame during a period estimated by one witness to be in excess of 20 minutes. When the police arrived at the scene, they observed the victim in a dazed and battered condition and put him in a squad car to take him to a hospital for medical treatment. However, he refused to be taken to the hospital, and the police then drove him to his home. The next day, he received medical attention at a clinic and was told to come back for a subsequent examination later that week. He returned to his home where he remained until May 8. At approximately 1:30 A.M. on that date he collapsed and was taken immediately to the emergency room of Provident Hospital where he was pronounced dead. A pathologist testified that death resulted from 'multiple injuries extreme' to the head, neck and trunk caused by a physical beating sustained within a few days of his death. The defendants presented alibi defenses.
Defendants Handley and Slater were each fifteen years of age on the date the offense was committed. Pursuant to section 2--7(3) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 37, par. 702--7(3)), the State's Attorney filed petitions to remove each of them from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court so that they could be tried in the circuit court of Cook County, criminal division. In separate hearings on the removal petitions, the juvenile court judge heard the arguments of counsel, although no testimony was taken or other evidence presented. In each case the judge entered no objection to removal, and the juvenile court actions were dismissed.
On this appeal, defendants Handley and Slater contend that the circuit court of Cook County had no jurisdiction to try them for murder, since the removal provisions of section 2--7(3) of the Juvenile Court Act are unconstitutional. The pertinent part of that statute provides: 'If a petition alleges commission by a minor 13 years of age or over of an act which constitutes a crime under the laws of this State, the State's Attorney shall determine the court in which that minor is to be prosecuted; however, if the Juvenile Court Judge objects to the removal of a case from the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court, the matter shall be referred to the chief judge of the circuit for decision and disposition.' Defendant contends: (1) That the statute does not meet minimal procedural safeguards in that it does not specify standards on which a removal decision is to be based, does not require a hearing, and does not require a record of the reasons for the judicial determination not to object to removal; (2) that the provision giving the chief judge the right to review the juvenile court judge's objection to removal violates the independence of the juvenile court judge; and (3) that vesting discretion in the State's Attorney to decide whether or not to remove a juvenile from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court without providing any standards to limit his discretion deprives juvenile defendants of due process and equal protection under the law. In support of these contentions, defendant places primary reliance on Kent v. United States (1966), 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84, in which the Supreme Court held that the District of Columbia Juvenile Court Act requiring a hearing before a juvenile could be removed from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to be prosecuted criminally.
These issues were recently resolved by this court in People v. Bombacino, 57 Ill.2d 17, 280 N.E.2d 697. In that case we pointed out that the Kent decision involved construction of provisions of the District of Columbia Juvenile Court Act which were materially different from the provisions of the Illinois statute now in question. The statute in Kent vested discretion in the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction over the minor after a 'full investigation.' Section 2--7(3) of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act does not contain the 'full investigation' equivalent of the District of Columbia statute and does not vest jurisdiction in the court to determine the matter of waiver of jurisdiction. Rather, the State's Attorney is directed to determine whether a juvenile offender should be removed from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for criminal prosecution, subject only to the right of the presiding juvenile court judge to object, in which event the matter is referred to the chief judge of the circuit for decision. Historically, the office of the State's Attorney has involved the exercise of a large measure of discretion in the many areas in which State's Attorneys must act in the performance of their duties in the administration of justice. We do not find it constitutionally objectionable that the legislature has seen fit to grant discretion to the State's Attorney in removal matters under the Juvenile Court Act, particularly in view of the fact that the purposes of the Act as set forth in section 1--2 of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 37, par. 701--2) and can be presumed to be considered by State's Attorneys in making determinations in these matters. We further conclude, as we did in Bombacino, that the due process hearing prescribed in Kent is not required at this stage of the proceedings in the juvenile court.
Our decision in Bombacino is also directly in point with respect to defendants' challenge to that part of section 2--7(3) of the Juvenile Court Act which provides for referral to the chief judge of the circuit in those cases where the juvenile court judge objects to removal. In this case, the juvenile court judge did not object to removal, and the matter was not referred to the chief judge of the circuit for decision and disposition. Since the defendants were not in any way aggrieved by these provisions, they clearly lack standing to challenge their constitutionality.
In the original trial of this case, the defendants' motion for mistrial was allowed after the court determined that some of the jurors had read newspaper articles or heard radio reports concerning the trial which may have prejudiced them against the defendants. The case was immediately retried after denial of defendants' motions for discharge on the grounds that reprosecution would place them in double jeopardy in violation of the State and Federal constitutions and provisions of the Criminal Code. On this appeal, defendants contend that their motions for discharge were improperly denied.
In the original trial, the State's eighth witness refused to testify due to fear of reprisals by a youth gang. The witness was cited for contempt of court for failing to testify, and a contempt hearing was held. Although the Cook County State's Attorney, had not personally handled the prosecution of the case, he was present in the courtroom during the contempt hearing. Members of the news media were also present, and details of the contempt hearing were publicly reported as was a statement by the State's Attorney that he would seek a perjury indictment against a witness who had testified earlier. The defendants contend that the presence of the State's Attorney in the courtroom during the contempt hearing was unnecessary and served only to draw representatives of the press, radio and television to that hearing, and that this, together with his statement to the press, constituted prosecutorial misconduct which resulted in an 'improper' termination of the trial within the meaning of section 3--4 of the Criminal Code. That statute provides in pertinent part that: 'A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted for the same offense, based upon the same facts, if such former prosecution * * * was terminated improperly after the jury was impaneled and sworn * * *.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, par. 3--4(a)(3).
After hearing argument of counsel on the defendants' motion for discharge, the court below made the following findings: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bell
...by statute as stated in Banks v. State, 520 So.2d 43 (Fla.App.1987), review denied, 529 So.2d 693 (Fla.1988); People v. Handley, 51 Ill.2d 229, 231-35, 282 N.E.2d 131, 134-35, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 914, 93 S.Ct. 247, 34 L.Ed.2d 175 (1972); State v. Grayer, 191 Neb. 523, 524-27, 215 N.W.2d ......
-
The City of Massillon v. Mark A. Kohler
... ... saw, that particular night, concerning that particular ... defendant. And then you tell the people of the State of Ohio ... that he is not guilty ... Now you can not base your acquittal of this defendant by ... imaginary doubt, ... State v Pulawa, 58 Hawaii 377, 569 P2d 900, cert den 436 US ... 925, 56 L Ed 2d 768, 98 S Ct 2818; People v Handley, 51 Ill ... 2d 229, 282 NE2d 131, cert den 409 US 914, 34 L Ed 2d 175, 93 ... S Ct 247 and (ovrld on other grounds People v Rahn 59 Ill ... ...
-
People v. Aliwoli
...have found a voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder instruction was not warranted by the evidence include: People v. Handley (1972), 51 Ill.2d 229, 282 N.E.2d 131 (beating death of victim over period of time by a number of assailants did not involve sudden and intense passion result......
-
People v. Lewis
...for voluntary manslaughter it is error for the trial court to refuse a tendered instruction on that offense. (People v. Handley (1972), 51 Ill.2d 229, 282 N.E.2d 131; People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill.2d 302, 278 N.E.2d 756.) In the absence of such a tender, however, the trial court has no du......
-
Unbridled Prosecutorial Discretion and Standardless Death Penalty Policies: the Unconstitutionality of the Washington Capital Punishment Statutory Scheme
...3d 207, 343 N.E.2d 649 (1976)); People v. Bombacino, 52 Ill. 2d 17, 280 N.E.2d 697, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 914 (1972); People v. Handley, 51 Ill. 2d 229, 282 N.E.2d 131, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 914 (1972), overruled, People v. Rahn, 59 Ill. 2d 302, 319 N.E.2d 787 (1974) (as stated in People ......