People v. Jabine
| Decision Date | 23 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 17576.,17576. |
| Citation | 324 Ill. 55,154 N.E. 430 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. JABINE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Fulton County; Walter C. Frank, Judge.
Irvine Jabine was convicted of a second, violation of Prohibition Act, § 33, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
George W. Sprenger, of Peoria, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., and G. Ray Senift, State's Atty., of Canton, for the People.
Plaintiff in error prosecutes this writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court of Fulton county, finding him guilty of a second violation of section 33 of the Prohibition Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 43, § 34) and sentencing him to pay a fine of $1,500 and to imprisonment in the state penitentiary. He contends that the judgment should be reversed for the following reasons: (1) Section 33 contravenes section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution; (2) the people failed to prove a former conviction of violation of the act; and (3) the court failed to instruct the jury properly as to the form of verdict.
[1] In support of the first point, it is contended that section 33 creates a felony theretofore unknown to the law of this state, and that this subject is not expressed in the title of the act. The title is ‘An act to restrict the manufacture, sale, transportation, possession, and use of intoxicating liquor, aiding thereby in establishing uniformity in state and federal laws in regard thereto.’ The general purpose of the constitutional provision that no act shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title, is accomplished when a law has but one general subject, which is fairly indicated by its title. Section 33 prescribes the penalty for violating the provisions of the act and is therefore germane to the subject-matter with which the act deals. The general purpose of the act being to restrict the use of intoxicating liquor, the means of accomplishing that purpose by prescribing penalties to enforce it is a necessary incident. It has been uniformly held that the title of an act need not be an index and that it is unnecessary to mention in the title that penalties are provided for its enforcement. State v. Milauskas, 318 Ill. 198, 149 N. E. 294;People v. Stacker, 322 Ill. 232, 153 N. E. 354.
[2] The indictment charged that plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Fulton county December 18, 1923, of the crime of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and to support this charge the people offered in evidence the record of the judgment of the county court. This record shows that plaintiff in error entered a plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor and that he was sentenced to pay a fine of $250. The only was the county court can obtain jurisdiction to try a person accused by indictment is under section 120 of the County Court Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 37, § 292), which gives the circuit court power to certify to the county court for process and trial indictments charging offenses cognizable in the county court. There is no proof in this record of the organization of the circuit court, the impaneling of the grand jury, the returning of the indictment into open court by the grand jury, the indictment, the certifying of the indictment to the county court for process and trial, or the organization of the county court. These are indispensable parts of the record to show the conviction in the county court (Kirby v. People, 123 Ill. 436, 15 N. E. 33;Bartholomew v. People, 104 Ill. 601, 44 Am. Rep. 97), and it was error to admit in evidence the record of the judgment of the county court without proving the preliminary steps necessary to the entry of a valid judgment.
[3] Section 33 of the Prohibition Act requires the pleading of the prior conviction in the indictment where the prosecution is for a second offense, and in order to sustain a conviction for the second offense the prior conviction must be established by proper evidence. State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413, 144 N. W. 142,49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 449;People v. Sickles, 156 N. Y. 541, 51 N. E. 288.
The court instructed the jury that, if they found the defendant guilty, the form of their verdict should be:
‘We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of selling intoxicating liquor in manner and form as charged in the _____ count or counts of the indictment, and we find the age of the defendant to be _____ years,’
—the blank spaces to be filled in accordance with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Alvord
...under liquor laws is inadmissible. (People v. Jones, 78 Cal.App. 554, 248 P. 964; Anderson v. United States, 18 F.2d 404; People v. Jabine, 324 Ill. 55, 154 N.E. 430; State v. Gendusa, 122 Kan. 520, 253 P. Little v. Commonwealth, 221 Ky. 696, 299 S.W. 563; People v. Thompson, 238 Mich. 171,......
-
People v. Roche
...IV of the constitution. People v. Colegrove, 354 Ill. 164, 187 N.E. 913;People v. Tallmadge, 328 Ill. 210, 159 N.E. 319;People v. Jabine, 324 Ill. 55, 154 N.E. 430;People v. Stacker, 322 Ill. 232, 153 N.E. 354;State of Illinois v. Milauskas, 318 Ill. 198, 149 N.E. 294. Here, the title fairl......
-
City of Litchfield v. Thorworth
...body of the act to be within the title was considered in those cases. People v. DeGeovanni, 326 Ill. 230, 157 N. E. 195;People v. Jabine, 324 Ill. 55, 154 N. E. 430;Swierczek v. Baran, 324 Ill. 530, 155 N. E. 294;People v. Alfano, 322 Ill. 384, 153 N. E. 729;State of Illinois v. Milauskas, ......
-
People ex rel. Marcus v. Swanson
...a sufficient compliance with section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution. People v. Tallmadge, 328 Ill. 210, 159 N. E. 319;People v. Jabine, 324 Ill. 55, 154 N. E. 430;People v. Stacker, 322 Ill. 232, 153 N. E. 354;State v. Milauskas, 318 Ill. 198, 149 N. E. 294. If germane to the purpose s......