People v. Lawrence
| Decision Date | 26 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 37716,37716 |
| Citation | 194 N.E.2d 337,29 Ill.2d 426 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. William LAWRENCE, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Warren D. Wolfson, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, States Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
Defendant, William Lawrence, was tried by a jury in the criminal court of Cook County and found guilty of the crimes of armed robbery and assault with intent to murder. Judgments were entered on the verdicts, sentences to the penitentiary were imposed, and defendant now prosecutes this writ of error for review contending that the trial court erred in denying his petition for a change of venue, as a consequence of which all subsequent orders were void.
The undisputed facts show that the cases against defendant were assigned to one of the judges of the criminal court, on April 1, 1958, upon which date they were continued to May 5, 1958. When the latter date arrived defendant appeared with his counsel and the latter requested a conference with the court for a stated purpose of 'disposing' of the cases. The request was immediately granted and after defendant had been taken back to jail, it appears that a conference was held by the court and counsel which carried over until the following day. At its conclusion, on May 6, defendant filed a petition for a change of venue alleging prejudice on the part of the judge to whom it was assigned and one other judge of the criminal court. The petition was denied, as were subsequent oral renewals, and the sole issue here is whether such refusal constituted reversible error.
Under the circumstances here presented the trial judge was fully warranted in denying the petition. While the right of a defendant to a change of venue on account of the prejudice of the judge is absolute, both in civil and criminal cases, (People v. Davis, 10 Ill.2d 430, 140 N.E.2d 675; People v. Beamon, 24 Ill.2d 562, 182 N.E.2d 656) it is at the same time a right which may be waived if not asserted in apt time. (People v. Stewart, 20 Ill.2d 387, 169 N.E.2d 796.) In such regard, we have consistently held that a petition for a change of venue must be filed at the earliest practical moment, and have found that petitions delayed until after the trial judge has by his rulings passed upon substantive issues, and indicated his views on the merits of the cause, come too late. (People v. Wilfong, 17 Ill.2d 373, 162 N.E.2d 256; People v. McDonald, 26 Ill.2d 325, 186 N.E.2d 303.) As was pointed out in People v. Chambers, 9 Ill.2d 83, 89, 136 N.E.2d 812, the requirement of 'earliest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Riley
...at the earliest practical moment. 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 202; People v. Jones, 51 Ill.App.2d 391, 201 N.E.2d 194; People v. Lawrence, 29 Ill.2d 496, 194 N.E.2d 337, Cert. denied 376 U.S. 946, 84 S.Ct. 804, 11 L.Ed.2d 770; People v. Wilfong, 17 Ill.2d 373, 162 N.E.2d The general rule is th......
-
People v. Spurlark
...days" (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, ch. 146, par. 25), and (b) the motion was presented "at the earliest practical moment" (People v. Lawrence (1963), 29 Ill.2d 426, 194 N.E.2d 337, Cert. denied, 376 U.S. 946, 84 S.Ct. 804, 11 L.Ed.2d 770). In extreme circumstances, the trial judge could inquire into......
-
People v. Taylor
...moment after any potential prejudice is discovered. (People v. King (1973), 54 Ill.2d 291, 297, 296 N.E.2d 731; People v. Lawrence (1963), 29 Ill.2d 426, 428, 194 N.E.2d 337; People v. Chambers (1956), 9 Ill.2d 83, 89, 136 N.E.2d 83.) The rule is clearly designed to prevent defendants "from......
-
Hoga v. Clark
...has ascertained the court's attitude on the merits of the case before seeking a change of venue based on prejudice. (People v. Lawrence (1963), 29 Ill.2d 426, 194 N.E.2d 337; People v. Evans (1979), 75 Ill.App.3d 949, 31 Ill.Dec. 508, 394 N.E.2d 710.) In the instant case the plaintiffs did ......