People v. Huff

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DUNN
• Citation: People v. Huff, 171 N.E. 261, 339 Ill. 328 (Ill. 1930)
• Decision Date: 17 April 1930
• Docket Number: No. 20085.,20085.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HUFF.

339 Ill. 328

171 N.E. 261

PEOPLE

v.HUFF.

No. 20085.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 17, 1930.

Error to Circuit Court, Williamson County; C. G. Mitchell, Judge.

John Huff was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error.

Reversed, and remanded for a new trial.

Rufus Neely and D. L. Duty, both of Marion, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., J. Roy Browing, State's Atty., of Marion, and George P. O'Brien, of Litchfield (A. F. Melvin, of Marion, and Hal G. Gallimore, of Carterville, of counsel), for the People.

DUNN, J.

At the February term, 1927, of the circuit court of Williamson county, the grand jury returned an indictment against John Huff charging him in three counts with the crime of murder by attempting to procure the miscarriage of Lorine Morris. He was tried at the July term, 1929. The state's attorney entereda nolle as to the first two counts of the indictment during the trial, and the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter as charged in the indictment and finding his age to be about forty-five years. A motion was made for a new trial, which was continued until the September term of the court, and on September 26, during that term, was overruled. The defendant, after making a motion in arrest of judgment, which was overruled, was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary and has sued out a writ of error to review the record.

The defendant moved to quash the indictment and each count of it, and assigns for error the denial of the motion to quash the third count, upon which he was tried. The third count charged that the plaintiff in error on May 27, 1926, ‘did unlawfully, feloniously and willfully use and employ a certain metallic instrument, the name of which is to these grand jurors unknown, in and upon one Lorine Morris by then and there forcing, thrusting and inserting said instrument into the private parts and womb of said Lorine Morris, and then and there did thereby unlawfully, feloniously and willfully attempt to procure and produce the miscarriage of the said Lorine Morris, it not being then and there necessary to cause such miscarriage for the preservation of the life of the said Lorine Morris, the said John Huff, alias 'Doctor’ Huff, then and there well knowing that the use of the said instrument aforesaid, at the time aforesaid, in the manner aforesaid, would produce such miscarriage, by reason whereof the said Lorine Morris from the 27th day of May, in the year aforesaid, did languish, and languishing did live, on which said 6th day of June, in the year aforsaid, in the county aforesaid, the said Lorine Morris then and there died; and so the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do say that the said John Huff, alias 'Doctor' Huff, in manner and form as aforesaid, then and there feloniously, willfully and of his malice aforethought did kill and murder.'

As an indictment charging murder this count is insufficient, because it does not charge that the death of Lorine Morris was the result of the attempted abortion. The indictment, after charging the attempt to cause a miscarriage, charges that ‘Lorine Morris from the 27th day of May, in the year aforesaid, did languish, and languishing did live, on which said 6th day of June, in the year aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the said Lorine Morris then and there died.’ There is no statement that Lorine Morris did languish, and languishing did live until the 6th day of June. She may have entirely recovered before that time, and there is no statement that she died as a result of the use of the instrument on her.

It is argued that the indictment does not allege that Lorine Morris was a woman or that she was pregnant. The name ‘Lorine’ is a feminine name. The count charges the insertion of a blunt instrument into the womb of her with intent to produce a ‘miscarriage of the said Lorine.’ These allegations necessarily refer to a woman. It was not necessary to allege that she was pregnant. It would be impossible to produce a miscarriage if she were not, but it was not necessary to the making of...