People v. McCauley

• Decision Date: 17 December 1912
• Citation: 256 Ill. 504,100 N.E. 182
• Parties: PEOPLE v. McCAULEY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

256 Ill. 504

100 N.E. 182

PEOPLE

v.McCAULEY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1912.

Error to Circuit Court, Du Page County; Henry B. Willis, Judge.

Daniel McCauley was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.Louis Greenberg, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Hadley, State's Atty., of Wheaton, and Joel C. Fitch, of Springfield, for the People.

VICKERS, J.

This is a writ of error to the circuit court of Du Page county, and brings up a judgment against Daniel McCauley, wherein he was adjudged guilty of murder and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary at Joliet for and during his natural life.

The record before us shows the following situation: On the 2d day of October, 1905, the regular grand jury for the October term of said court was organized and proceeded to the discharge of its duties. On the 4th day of said month the grand jury was discharged by the court. The order discharging the grand jury is as follows: ‘And now, it appearing to the court that the grand jury has completed its business, it is ordered that they be discharged from further service, unless recalled.’ On November 13th following, the October term of court still being in session, upon a proper showing made by the state's attorney, the court entered an order recalling the grand jury, to assemble on the 20th day of November. When the grand jury was first impaneled J. C. Woods was appointed foreman, and he and the jurors were duly sworn and instructed by the court. The order recalling the grand jury is as follows: ‘Now, on this day, comes H. H. Goodrich, state's attorney of said county, and moves the court that the grand jury heretofore impaneled in this court at this term thereof be recalled; and the said motion coming on for hearing before the court, and it appearing to the court that special occasion has arisen since the dismissal thereof on October 4, 1905, requiring that said grand jury be recalled, it is therefore ordered by the court that the grand jury heretofore impaneled at this term of court be and the same are hereby recalled to assemble at the courthouse, in the city of Wheaton, in said county, on Monday, the 20th day of November, A. D. 1905, at 10 o'clock a. m.; and it is further ordered that the clerk of this court notify each of said grand jurors of said recall and of the time and place.’ It further appears that on November 20th, being one of the days of the October term of court, the grand jury reappeared and was placed in charge of a sworn officer and retired for the purpose of transacting such further business as might be brought before it, and afterwards returned, among others, the indictment against plaintiff in error, charging him with murder. The record shows that plaintiff in error was arraigned on November 24th and entered a plea of not guilty. The cause was then continued until the March term of court. On March 5th it appears that plaintiff in error withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered his plea of guilty, and that he persisted in such plea after being duly admonished by the court of the effect and consequence thereof. On the 8th of March the plaintiff in error was sentenced, on his plea of guilty, to the penitentiary for life. Plaintiff in error now seeks a reversal of this judgment upon two grounds: First, it is contended that the court had no power to recall the grand jury for the consideration of general business after it had been discharged; and, second, it is contended that, even if the grand jurors were properly recalled after having been discharged, it was necessary to reswear them.

[1][2] Plaintiff in error contends that section 405, division 11, of the Criminal Code (Hurd's Rev. St. 1911, c. 38), which provides that, if the grand jurors are dismissed before the court adjourns, they may be summoned again on any special occasion at such time as the court directs, limits the power of the court to recall the grand jury only for some special purpose, and that indictments returned, not embraced within the special purpose for which the grand jury was recalled, would be wholly void for the want of power in the grand jury to return them. This contention cannot be sustained. Even if the plaintiff in error's view as to the construction to be placed on the statute be correct, still where, as in this case, the question was not raised by motion to quash or by challengeto the array in the court below, it would be presumed, in support of the judgment, that the ‘special occasion’ existed authorizing the recall of the grand jury, unless the contrary affirmatively appeared on the face of the record. White v. People, 81 Ill. 333. Circuit courts are courts of general and original criminal jurisdiction, and it is not necessary, to sustain their jurisdiction, that the evidence upon which their jurisdiction is based should be preserved and recited in the record, as is required in case of courts of inferior and limited jurisdiction.

[3][4] There is no enumeration in the statute of the ‘special occasion’ the existence of which would justify the recalling of a grand jury previously discharged. Clearly, it was left to the discretion of the circuit court to determine when and for what purposes the grand jury should be recalled, but we do not agree with the plaintiff in error that section 405 of the Criminal Code is a limitation upon the power and jurisdiction of the circuit court in respect to the duties that may lawfully be performed by a grand jury after it has been recalled into court. The grand jury is a necessary constituent part of every court having general criminal jurisdiction, especially in jurisdictions like ours, where crimes above the grade of misdemeanors can only be prosecuted upon the presentment of a grand jury. Boone v. People, 148 Ill. 440, 36 N. E. 99. The grand jury must necessarily, like other agencies provided to enable the court to administer justice and enforce the law, be to a large extent under the control and subject to the direction of the court. 20 Cyc. 1294. If we had no statute providing for the calling and impaneling of a grand jury, clearly circuit courts in this state could assemble and organize a grand jury, under their general common-law powers, during any regular term, when in their discretion they deemed it necessary to do so. 20 Cyc. 1295, and cases there cited. The court had the power to call a special grand jury, if necessary, and this power existed independently of the statute. The only purposethat seems to be accomplished by section 405 of the Criminal Code is to authorize the court to reassemble a grand jury that had previously been discharged during the same term of court. There is nothing in the statute that suggests to our minds that the grand jury, when thus lawfully reassembled, would not have the power to investigate and make presentments upon any matter which might be given in its charge.

[5][6] Again, the order...