People v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 20 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 59935,59935 |
| Citation | 26 Ill.App.3d 776,326 N.E.2d 164 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cleotha HUNT, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James J. Doherty, Public Defender, Edmund B. Moran, Jr., Richard D. Kharas, John Thomas Moran, Chicago, for defendant-appellee.
Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Donald Devlin, Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and William F. Linkul, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.
Clotha Hunt was arrested on September 10, 1972, and charged with theft. The complaint filed against him alleged the theft of property having a value less than $150, but it also alleged, 'Felony: prior convictions for petty theft.' At the preliminary hearing, which was not held until November 14, 1972, the court found probable cause and Hunt was bound over to the grand jury. The grand jury returned an indictment charging him--upon the same set of facts--with burglary from a motor vehicle and theft of property having a value greater than $150.
Hunt filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that he was not given a prompt preliminary hearing as required by section 7 of Article I of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, S.H.A. and that he was not afforded a preliminary hearing whatsoever on the offenses charged in the indictment because those offenses differed in substance from the offenses charged in the complaint.
The trial court held that Hunt was entitled to a preliminary hearing on the charges of burglary and theft of property in excess of $150 and dismissed the indictment.
The State contends that by its indictment the grand jury found probable cause, therefore no preliminary hearing was required as to the offenses for which he was indicted. The State also seems to contend that the delay between Hunt's arrest and his preliminary hearing on the lesser offense is inconsequential in view of his direct indictment for the greater offenses.
The trial court incorrectly held that Hunt was entitled to a preliminary hearing on the charges contained in the indictment. The primary purpose of the second paragraph of section 7 of Article I is to secure a determination of probable cause by either the grand jury or a judge. People v. Kent (1973), 54 Ill.2d 161, 295 N.E.2d 710; first footnote, Bill of Rights Committee Report (7 Record of Proceedings, Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention, p. 2600). The trial court determined probable cause as to the charge of theft contained in the criminal complaint and the grand jury determined probable cause as to the charges of theft and burglary contained in the indictment. This was permissible even though both determinations were based upon the same facts.
The second paragraph of section 7 of Article I provides that no person shall be held to answer for a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary unless either the initial charge has been brought by indictment or the person has been given a prompt preliminary hearing to establish probable cause. The commentary relating to the constitutional provision recites:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bradley
...1136, 42 Ill.Dec. 575, 409 N.E.2d 70; People v. Anderson (1981), 92 Ill.App.3d 849, 48 Ill.Dec. 183, 416 N.E.2d 78; People v. Hunt (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 776, 326 N.E.2d 164. We need not determine whether Bradley's right to a prompt preliminary hearing was violated nor need we decide what re......
-
People v. Clerk
...72 Ill.2d 515, 22 Ill.Dec. 403, 382 N.E.2d 793; People v. Kent (1972), 54 Ill.2d 161, 295 N.E.2d 710; See also People v. Hunt (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 776, 326 N.E.2d 164. As the Creque court stated, quoting Kent with "In our opinion the language of the constitutional provision, as well as the......
-
People v. Eisele
...v. Price (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 610, 336 N.E.2d 56; People v. Moore (1975), 28 Ill.App.3d 1085, 329 N.E.2d 893; People v. Hunt (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 776, 326 N.E.2d 164. In most reported cases the defendant was initially charged by complaint or information, held in custody or to bail without......
-
People v. Kirkley
...People v. Kent (1972), 54 Ill.2d 161, 295 N.E.2d 710; People v. Williams (1974), 20 Ill.App.3d 840, 314 N.E.2d 276; People v. Hunt (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 776, 326 N.E.2d 164; People v. Howell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 117, 324 N.E.2d While it is recognized and acknowledged that an accused has a cons......