People v. Kroll
| Decision Date | 28 October 1913 |
| Citation | 259 Ill. 592,102 N.E. 1080 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. KROLL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Martin M. Gridley, Judge.
John Kroll was convicted of rape, and brings error. Reversed and remanded.
James C. O'Brien, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., and Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., of Chicago (Zach Hofheimer, of Chicago, and George P. Ramsey, of Springfield, of counsel), for the People.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for an assault with intent to commit rape, and upon a second trial the jury found him guilty of rape, fixing his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for three years. The court overruled his motion for a new trial, sentenced him in accordance with the verdict, and he has already served more than half of his term.
There is no bill of exceptions in the record. No motion was made to quash the indictment, but it is insisted that it was error for the court to receive or act upon the indictment because the grand jury was not legally constituted. Only 14 grand jurors appeared and the court ordered 50 names drawn. This was done, the panel was filled, and the grand jury was organized.
[1] The objection of the plaintiff in error is based upon the fact that it does not affirmatively appear that at the time the 50 names were drawn there were a thousand names in the grand jury box, as required by section 29 of chapter 78 of Hurd's Statutes. This was not necessary. It will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
[2] If the indictment was not found by a legal grand jury, the plaintiff in error should have moved to quash it, and his failure to do so waived all objections to the grand jury. People v. McCauley, 256 Ill. 504, 100 N. E. 182;Berkenfield v. People, 191 Ill. 272,61 N. E. 481;Hagenow v. People, 188 Ill. 545, 59 N. E. 242.
[3] The verdict found the defendant ‘guilty of rape in manner and form as charged in the indictment.’ Since the defendant was not charged with rape in the indictment, the verdict was not responsive to the issue. Rape is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will, but every male person of the age of 17 years and upwards who shall have carnal knowledge of any female person under the age of 16 years and not his wife, either with or without her consent, shall be adjudged to be guilty of the crime of rape. The indictment charged that the defendant, ‘being a male person of the age of 16 years and upwards,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Corbett
...objections, he cannot now raise the question on the record before this court. People v. Knox, 302 Ill. 471, 134 N.E. 923;People v. Kroll, 259 Ill. 592, 102 N.E. 1080. There is nothing in the record before us to show that any objection was made to the sufficiency of the indictment or the com......
- Jacobs v. Ditz
-
People v. Baxton
...to make and preserve such objections, defendant cannot raise the question. People v. Knox, 302 Ill. 471, 134 N.E. 923; People v. Kroll, 259 Ill. 592, 102 N.E. 1080. It should be stated that we find the indictment to be proper as to form and The next assignments of error center around the as......