People v. Jensen

• Decision Date: 21 November 1945
• Docket Number: No. 29029.,29029.
• Citation: 64 N.E.2d 1,392 Ill. 72
• Parties: PEOPLE v. JENSEN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

392 Ill. 72

64 N.E.2d 1

PEOPLE

v.JENSEN.

No. 29029.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 21, 1945.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Ulysses S. Schwartz, Judge.

Frederick Peter Jensen was convicted of taking improper and indecent liberties with a female child, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Ellis & Westbrooks, Richard E. Westbrooks and Claude W. B. Holman, all of Chicago, Dudley H. Thomas, of Waukegan, and Richard K. Cooper, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and William J. Tuohy, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, and Joseph A. Pope, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

WILSON, Justice.

The defendant, Frederick Peter Jensen, fifty-one years of age, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for sexual crimes against a girl eleven years of age. The indictment consisted of six counts. Of these, the first three charged rape; the fourth, immoral, improper and indecent liberties, and the fifth and sixth counts acts tending to render the prosecuting witness a delinquent child. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Later, all counts except count four were nolle prossed. A jury trial resulted in a finding of guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment. Defendant was thereupon sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of from one to twenty years' imprisonment. Jensen prosecutes this writ of error upon the common-law record, no bill of exceptions having been filed.

Seeking a reversal, defendant contends that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to describe the particular acts constituting the ‘immoral, improper and indecent liberties' charged. Defendant did not challenge the indictment by a motion to quash, nor did he ask for a bill of particulars. The fourth count charged the offense substantially in the lenguage of the Criminal Code. Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 38, par. 109, sec. 1. The grand jury added, ‘a more particular description of said immoral, improper and indecent liberties is too obscene and too gross to be spread upon the record of the court.’ An indictment charging the criminal offense of indecent liberties in the terms and language of the statute is sufficient. Conversely, an indictment charging the statutory crime of indecent liberties need not necessarily describe the acts which the accused is alleged to have committed. People v. Rogers, 324 Ill. 224, 154 N.E. 909;People v. Butler, 268 Ill. 635, 109 N.E. 677;People v. Scattura, 238 Ill. 313, 87 N.E. 332. Defendant argues further that the words ‘immoral, improper and indecent,’ employed in the statute and contained in the indictment, are beyond the understanding of a layman. In the construction and application of a statute words are to be given their generally accepted meaning, unless there is something in the act indicating that the legislature used them in a different sense. In People v. Friedrich, 385 Ill. 175, 52 N.E.2d 120, involving a prosecution under an analogous statute prohibiting the exhibition and offering for sale of obscene and indecent pictures, we recently held that the words ‘obscene’ and ‘indecent’ are of common usage, and are ordinarily used in the sense of meaning something offensive to the chastity of mind, delicacy and purity of thought, something suggestive of lust, lasciviousness and sensuality. A like meaning may be ascribed to the words, ‘immoral, improper, and indecent,’ in the present case.

Defendant next contends that there was a failure to include in the judgment order all the elements of the offense charged, that it was not responsive to the verdict and, consequently, void. He argues that the judgment should have specifically found him guilty of taking immoral, improper and indecent liberties with the intent of arousing, appealing to and gratifying his lust, passions and sexual desires. The judgment found him guilty of indecent liberties, in manner and form as charged in the fourth count of the indictment. Admittedly, the allegations of the indictment included the language claimed to be missing from the judgment order. The law does not require specific repetition, and a verdict or judgment containing a reference to the allegations of an indictment is sufficient. In determining the sufficiency of a judgment entered pursuant to a verdict, the test is whether the intention of the jury is ascertainable with reasonable certainty. A liberal construction, with all reasonable intendments,will be indulged to support the verdict and judgment. People v. Bailey, 391 Ill. 149, 62 N.E.2d 796;People v. Orlando, 380 Ill. 107, 43 N.E.2d 677. All parts of the record will be searched and interpreted together in determining the meaning of a verdict and judgment, and they will not be held insufficient unless, from necessity, a doubt as to their meaning obtains. People v. Bailey, 391 Ill. 149, 62 N.E.2d 796;People v. Orlando, 380 Ill. 107, 43 N.E.2d 677;People v. Quesse, 310 Ill. 467, 142 N.E. 187;People v. Tierney, 250 Ill. 515, 95 N.E. 447.

Defendant next contends that the action of an...