People v. Lindner
| Decision Date | 21 February 1914 |
| Citation | 262 Ill. 223,104 N.E. 329 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LINDNER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Adelor J. Petit, Judge.
John Lindner was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
Walter E. Boerger and F. L. Barnett, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., of Chicago, and George P. Ramsey, of Springfield, for the People.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the criminal court of Cook county sentencing plaintiff in error to a life term in the penitentiary for the crime of murder.
The trial of plaintiff in error was had at the July term, 1913, of the criminal court of Cook county. That term of court began on the 7th day of July, 1913. On the 23d of July, 1913, plaintiff in error moved for his discharge for want of prosecution within the time required by the statute. Hurd's Stat. 1911, c. 38, par. 438. The motion was overruled, and on the 29th day of July, and during said July term, defendant was tried, found guilty by a verdict of a jury, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. The only question raised by the assignments of error is the ruling of the criminal court in denying the motion of plaintiff in error for his discharge. Plaintiff in error contends he was committed to jail under the charge of murder for which he was subsequently indicted and convicted, on the 24th day of February, 1913, and, not having been tried at a term of court having jurisdiction of the offense, commencing within four months of the day of commitment, the court was without jurisdiction to try him at a later term, and should have allowed his motion for discharge.
[1] There is no bill of exceptions in the record. There is a stipulation between the state's attorney of Cook county and plaintiff in error, by his counsel, that on the hearing of the motion of plaintiff in error for his discharge certain evidence was offered in support of the motion, which is then set out, but is not signed by the judge. The clerk's certificate to the record is that it is a true, perfect, and correct copy of the record, ‘together with a copy of a certain stipulation signed by the people of the state of Illinois, by Maclay Hoyne, state's attorney, and John Lindner, by Walter E. Boerger and F. L. Barnett, his attorneys.’ The evidence offered and heard in support of the motion to dischargecould not be made a part of the record except by the certificate of the trial judge. In the absence of a bill of exceptions certified by the trial judge it could not be made a part of the record by the clerk incorporating it therein. People v. Tielke, 259 Ill. 88, 102 N. E. 229;Gillespie v. People, 176 Ill. 238, 52 N. E. 250. All that is shown by what can properly be considered as the record is that on the 28th day of April, 1913, which was one of the days of the April term of the criminal court, the grand jury returned into open court an indictment charging plaintiff in error with the murder of Annie Christine Lindner. On the 2d day of May, which was also one of the days of the April term of court, plaintiff in error was furnished with a copy of the indictment and lists of witnesses and jurors, and upon being arraigned entered a plea of not guilty. It is not shown for what reason or at whose instance the cause was not tried at the May or June term of the criminal court. The record shows that on the 23d day of July (one of the days of the July term of the criminal court) plaintiff in error moved the court to discharge him for want of prosecution within the time prescribed by law. On that day the motion was heard in part, and its further hearing postponed to the 28th day of July, at which time the hearing upon the motion was concluded, and the motion overruled. On the 29th day of July, which was still during the July term, a jury was impaneled, trial had, plaintiff in error found guilty, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment for life by the verdict of the jury. Plaintiff in error thereupon moved for a new trial, which motion was continued until August 1, 1913, on which date it was overruled. Thereupon plaintiff in error moved in arrest of judgment, and that motion was also overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict, sentencing plaintiff in error to imprisonment in the penitentiary at Joliet for the term of his natural life.
It does not appear from the record when plaintiff in error was committed to jail for the supposed criminal offense, or that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gooding
...has sought and obtained a continuance within the period in question, (People v. Stillman, 391 Ill. 227, 62 N.E.2d 698; People v. Lindner, 262 Ill. 223, 104 N.E. 329; People v. Witt, 333 Ill. 258, 164 N.E. 682) or when he asks for and receives a change of venue (People v. Iasello, 410 Ill. 2......
-
People v. Gimza
...date of a subsequent commitment after the earlier identical charge had been dismissed for want of prosecution. See People v. Lindner (1914), 262 Ill. 223, 227, 104 N.E. 329. This suggests that the real issue, when a charge against a defendant is dismissed and he is later re-indicted on the ......
-
People v. Rankins
...has sought and obtained a continuance within the period in question (People v. Stillman, 391 Ill. 227, 62 N.E.2d 698; People v. Lindner, 262 Ill. 223, 104 N.E. 329; People v. Witt, 333 Ill. 258, 164 N.E. 682), or when he asks for and receives a change of venue (People v. Iasello, 410 Ill. 2......
-
People v. McAdrian
...date of a subsequent commitment after the earlier identical charge had been dismissed for want of prosecution. See People v. Lindner (1914), 262 Ill. 223, 227, 104 N.E. 329. This suggests that the real issue, when a charge against a defendant is dismissed and he is later re-indicted on the ......