People v. Peppas
Decision Date | 23 March 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 36730,36730 |
Citation | 24 Ill.2d 483,182 N.E.2d 228 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, v. William PEPPAS et al., Defendants in Error. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for plaintiff in error.
Myer H. Gladstone, Chicago, for defendants in error.
The People seek review of a judgment of the criminal court of Cook County quashing an indictment charging defendants, William Peppas, John Allekian and Stanford R. E. Levitt, with conspiracy to commit larceny. The writ of error was originally sued out from the Appellate Court, but was thereafter transferred, on the People's motion, to this court, since the motion to quash raised constitutional questions.
Defendants were indicted for conspiracy by the grand jury of Cook County on July 18, 1960. Thereafter defendants moved to quash the indictment alleging, inter alia, that the indictment violates the Illinois and United States constitutions in that it is so vague that the defendants cannot know the nature and cause of the accusation made against them.
The indictment charges that defendants 'on the eighth day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty in said County of Cook, in the State of Illinois aforesaid, unlawfully and wilfully conspired, combined, confederated and agreed together with each other and with divers other persons whose names are unknown to said Grand Jurors, with the fraudulent and malicious intent in said State unlawfully, feloniously, wrongfully and wickedly to steal, take and carry away from the heirs of Sylvester Souci one United States Treasury note of the value of five thousand dollars lawful money of the United States of America, the personal goods and property of said heirs of said Sylvester Souci; contrary to the statute, and against the peace and dignity of the same People of the State of Illinois.'
The People argue that the indictment sufficiently charges the crime of conspiracy, and is specific enough to apprise the defendants of the nature of the crime and protect them from double jeopardy.
Defendants, however, contend that the trial court was correct in quashing the indictment on the ground that 'heirs of Sylvester Souci' is so vague and indefinite as to make the indictment insufficient.
The Illinois constitution of 1870 provides in section 9 of article II: 'In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right * * * to demand the nature and cause of the accusation and to have a copy thereof, * * *.' Section 10 of article II provides: 'No person shall * * * be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.'
The statutory requirements pertaining to the sufficiency of indictments reads as follows: 'Every indictment or accusation of the grand jury shall be deemed sufficiently technical and correct which states the offense in the terms and language of the statutes creating the offense, or so plainly that the nature of the offense may be easily understood by the jury.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 38, par. 716.
The test established by both the constitution and the statutes of Illinois for the sufficiency of an indictment was clearly set forth in People v. Beeftink, 21 Ill.2d 282, at page 287, 171 N.E.2d 632, at page 635, where we stated the issue:
We think that the indictment states the offense of conspiracy in the terms and language of the statute creating that offense, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 38, par. 139)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Adams
...offense under the statute, other matters unnecessarily appearing in the indictment may be rejected as surplusage. (Cf. People v. Peppas, 24 Ill.2d 483, 182 N.E.2d 228.) Thus, as the naming of the person to whom the illegal sale was made was not essential to the sufficiency of the indictment......
-
People v. Buffman
...to commit a crime, it is unnecessary to allege the means by which the act of the conspiracy was to be accomplished. (People v. Peppas (1962), 24 Ill.2d 483, 182 N.E.2d 228; People v. DeStefano (1967), 85 Ill.App.2d 274, 278-79, 229 N.E.2d 325.) A conspiracy indictment must be sufficient to ......
-
People v. DeStefano
...it is, therefore, unnecessary to allege the means by which the act or object of the conspiracy is to be accomplished. People v. Peppas, 24 Ill.2d 483, 182 N.E.2d 228. We also see no merit to the claim that because the indictment states that the robbery charge was brought by way of informati......
-
People v. Radford
...be proved, even though contained in the indictment. People v. Andrews, 327 Ill. 162, 158 N.E. 462 (1927). In People v. Peppas, 24 Ill.2d 483, p. 486, 182 N.E.2d 228, p. 229 (1962), our Supreme Court 'It is well settled that in an indictment for conspiracy to commit a felony it is sufficient......