People v. King
| Decision Date | 29 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | 73--227,Nos. 73--226,s. 73--226 |
| Citation | 309 N.E.2d 598,17 Ill.App.3d 1064 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne Stanley KING, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. Wayne Stanley KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David DeDONCKER et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Franklin S. Wallace, Rock Island, for defendant-appellant.
David DeDoncker, State's Atty., Rock Island, for plaintiff-appellee.
An indictment was returned by the grand jury of Rock Island County charging the defendant, Wayne Stanley King, in four counts with the commission of four felonies arising from a series of related incidents. Defendant King was charged with the attempted murder of the tavern owner (Beauchamp, Count III) and bartender (Peterson, Count II). As he left the tavern he pistol-whipped a woman on the street and was charged with aggravated battery (Randolph, Count IV). When a police car arrived, the defendant ran to his car, secured a shotgun and fired at and hit the police officer resulting in a charge of attempted murder (Bryant, Count I). Defendant King raised the defense of insanity. Both the State and defense presented psychiatric evidence. The jury was charged on the issue of insanity by I.P.I. instructions. The jury returned verdicts of 'Guilty' as to Counts I and II; 'Not Guilty' as to Count III; and as to Count IV. The trial judge believing such verdicts to be inconsistent directed the jurors to retire and try to return consistent verdicts. After further deliberations they were unable to do so at which point the court on its own motion declared a mistrial on all counts.
Thereafter, by written motion, the defendant requested the trial court to enter judgments of acquittal pursuant to the verdicts returned by the jury on Counts III and IV. It should be noted that these are the counts with respect to which the verdicts were not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity respectively. It also appears the defendant filed separate petitions for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition seeking essentially to accomplish the same purpose. The trial court denied defendant's motion to enter judgment on the acquittal verdicts and also denied the petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition. However, pursuant to defendant's motion, any action on Counts III and IV was stayed by the trial court pending disposition of this appeal.
Although the question may not be free from doubt, the parties have concluded that the action of the trial court in declaring a mistrial on Counts III and IV and in denying defendant's motion to enter judgment of acquittal thereon is appealable. The procedural situation confronting the trial court, the parties and this court on review is unique although both parties believed that our review of the trial court's action is desirable and will promote the ends of justice. We believe it appropriate to review the controversy and consider the trial court's refusal to enter judgment on Counts III and IV in accord with the verdicts of the jury as an equivalent of a final judgment. Accordingly, we do not feel it necessary to consider this controversy from the standpoint of the procedural problems associated with writs of prohibition and mandamus.
On this appeal a narrow question is presented; namely, whether the trial court's action in declaring a mistrial on Counts III and IV was proper. It is conceded the trial court declared a mistrial on all counts after the verdicts had been returned by the jury and it is also undisputed that his action was based on his belief the verdicts were inconsistent.
No cases have been called to our attention directly related to this issue, although there are numerous cases which have discussed and analyzed the problems incident to the rational incompatability of verdicts usually referred to as inconsistent verdicts. See People v. Pearson, 16 Ill.App.3d 543, 306 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Young
...a verdict is an acquittal sufficient even if a judgment of acquittal is not entered thereon. (People v. Stout; People v. King (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 1064, 309 N.E.2d 598.) This again is unlike a finding or verdict of guilty where the sentence is indispensable to its Defendant also contends t......
-
People v. Dilger
...An acquittal occurs when the trier of fact renders a finding of not guilty based upon evidence before it (People v. King (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 1064, 1066-67, 309 N.E.2d 598); however, the word "acquittal" has no talismanic quality as the substance of what was done controls, not how it was l......
-
People v. Bean, 12479
...the court is required to accept verdicts under those circumstances has not often been discussed in the cases. In People v. King, 17 Ill.App.3d 1064, 309 N.E.2d 598, verdicts of not guilty on two of several charges were held to be effective when returned into court even though the judge foun......
-
People v. Smith
...An acquittal occurs when the trier of fact renders a finding of not guilty based upon the evidence before it. (People v. King (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 1064, 1066-67, 309 N.E.2d 598.) Defendant was discharged on grounds unrelated to his guilt. Such a dismissal of the charge is not a judgment of......