People v. Harris
| Decision Date | 19 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 14455.,14455. |
| Citation | 302 Ill. 590,135 N.E. 75 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HARRIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John A. Swanson, Judge.
Joseph Harris was convicted of larceny, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Edward C. Fitch, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edward E. Wilson and Clyde C. Fisher, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Joseph Harris, plaintiff in error, was defendant in the criminal court of Cook county, under an indictment charging him with larceny from William J. Mains of treasury notes of various denominations therein stated, bank bills (commonly called national currency) of divers denominations, of the amount in value, in all, of $18, and one billfold of the value of $1.50. He was admitted to bail and, on November 10, 1921, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. A jury having been impaneled and sworn, the trial was continued until November 14, when defendant failed to appear, and his counsel objected to further proceedings in his absence. The objection was overruled, and the trial proceeded, ending in a verdict finding the defendant guilty and fixing the value of the property stolen at $19. On November 18 the defendant, being present in court, was sentenced on the verdict to imprisonment in the penitentiary at Joliet. A writ of error was sued out of this court, and, by the assignment of errors, it is alleged that the guilt of the defendant was not established beyond all reasonable doubt, that the court erred in hearing evidence and receiving the verdict in the absence of the defendant, and erred in sentencing him to the penitentiary.
There was a very unsatisfactory and deficient examination of William J. Mains as a witness to the larceny charged, but it was sufficient to justify a finding that the defendant was guilty of stealing the billfold. The substance of the testimony of Mains was that, on July 23, 1921, he was in a crowded street car on Cottage Grove avenue and was getting ready to transfer to another line when one of the boys got in front of him and the other fellow behind; that the fellow behind was the defendant; that the witness missed his pocketbook on the car, and the defendant said he had not got it; that the defendant made a get-away off the car; that the witness followed the defendant and had him arrested; that the defendant had a handful of different bills of every value up to $100, and said, ‘Can you tell me the amount and the denominations you had?’ that the witness said, ‘I had a ten, a five, and three ones'; that the defendant offered to give him them, and that the pocketbook was of the value of about $1.50 or $2. There was no evidence that any money described in the indictment was ever in the pocketbook or was stolen from Mains. His statement to the defendant that he had a ten, a five, and three ones was insufficient to show the larceny of money that was charged.
[4] Section 9 of the Bill of Rights is as follows:
‘In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation and to have a copy thereof, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.’
Every person accused of crime is entitled to the privileges secured to him by that section, and he cannot be deprived of them without his consent, but they are rights personal to himself, which he can either waive or insist upon at his own option. He is given the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel, but he may, if he prefers, plead guilty and waive any defense. He has a right to a trial by an impartial jury, but if he prefers not to challenge a juror,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...119; Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834; Parker v. United States, 4 Cir., 184 F.2d 488; People v. harris, 302 Ill. 590, 135 N.E. 75; 16 C. J.S., Constitutional Law, § 91; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 91. Hence, the constitutional right of a Negro defendant to be ......
-
United States v. Kobli
...P. 1080, L.R.A.1916E, 472, Ann.Cas. 1917E, 619; Keddington v. State, 1918, 19 Ariz. 457, 172 P. 273, L.R.A.1918D, 1093; People v. Harris, 1922, 302 Ill. 590, 135 N.E. 75; State v. Smith, 1936, 90 Utah 482, 62 P.2d 1110. 3 Davis v. United States, 8 Cir., 1917, 247 F. 394, 398, 399, L.R.A.191......
-
Ormento v. United States
...1951); Scruggs v. State, 131 Ark. 320, 198 S.W. 694 (1917); People v. Loomis, 27 Cal. App.2d 236, 80 P.2d 1012 (1938); People v. Harris, 302 Ill. 590, 135 N.E. 75 (1922); State v. Temple, 194 Mo. 237, 92 S.W. 869 (1906); People v. Mendola, 2 N.Y.2d 270, 159 N.Y.S.2d 473, 140 N.E. 2d 353 (19......
-
State v. McCrary
...Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18, 85 So. 166 (absences during questioning of juror and during the taking of testimony); People v. Harris, 302 Ill. 590, 135 N.E. 75 (absence from substantial part of trial); State v. McGinnis, 12 Idaho 336, 85 P. 1089 (argument of counsel); State v. Rubaka, 82 Con......