People v. Rohde
| Decision Date | 24 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 30883.,30883. |
| Citation | 403 Ill. 41,85 N.E.2d 24 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ROHDE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Harry B. Miller, Judge.
Edmond Arthur Rohde was convicted of burglary and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Edmond Arthur Rohde, pro se.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. and John S. Boyle, State's Atty., of Chicago (John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, W. S. Miroslawski and Arthur F. Manning, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
On December 7, 1928, the defendant, Edmond Arthur Rohde, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook County for the crime of burglary, alleged to have been committed on November 15, 1928. Upon defendant's request, counsel was appointed to represent him. A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding defendant guilty. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, and, on January 29, 1929, defendant was sentenced to the Illinois State Reformatory at Pontiac for an indeterminate sentence. Defendant was allowed thirty days within which to prepare and file his bill of exceptions. No bill of exceptions, however, has ever been filed. Appearing pro se, Rohde prosecutes this writ of error.
Defendant contends, first, that section 36 of division I of the Criminal Code, effective July 6, 1927, and in force in January, 1929, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1947, chap. 38, par. 84,) when judgment was rendered against defendant, fixing the punishment for burglary at imprisonment in the penitentiary for ‘any term of years not less than one year or for life’, violates Federal and State constitutional guarantees. This cause is before us on the common-law record, alone. So far as the common-law record discloses, neither defendant nor his counsel interposed any objection in the criminal court to any action taken before, during, or after the trial. The asserted constitutional question is presented for the first time in this court. Before we consider a question involving the construction of the constitution or the constitutional validity of a statute, it must appear from the record that a fairly debatable constitutional question was urged in the trial court, the ruling on it must be preserved in the record for review and error must be assigned upon it here. Housing Authority v. Church of God, 401 Ill. 100, 81 N.E.2d 500;People v. Brickey, 396 Ill. 140, 71 N.E.2d 157.
Defendant's second contention is that the Sentence and Parole Act of 1917 is invalid and unconstitutional by virtue of its provisions for general sentences, ‘which term implies indefinite sentences when viewed in conjunction with the burglary statute.’ Apart from the fact that the Sentence and Parole Act has been repeatedly held immune to constitutional attack, People v. Roche, 389 Ill. 361, 59 N.E.2d 866;People v. Mikula, 357 Ill. 481, 192 N.E. 546;People v. Dwyer, 324 Ill. 363, 155 N.E. 316;People v. Cohen, 307 Ill. 87, 138 N.E. 294;People v. Bernstein, 304 Ill. 351, 136 N.E. 683;People v. Simmons, 299 Ill. 201, 132 N.E. 423;People v. Connors, 291 Ill. 614, 126 N.E. 595;People v. Doras, 290 Ill. 188, 125 N.E. 2, defendant challenges its constitutional validity for the first time upon review. The contention made is not open to consideration.
Defendant contends, in the third place, that an illegally constituted grand jury presented the indictment and that it is, in consequence, void. He asserts that the names of women and Negroes were excluded from the panels from which both the grand jury and the petit jury were drawn, thereby depriving him of constitutional rights. Under the jury statute in force in December, 1928, and January, 1929, the inclusion of women on the grand and petit juries which indicted and tried defendant was improper. People v. Jones, 397 Ill. 264, 73 N.E.2d 278;People ex rel. Fyfe v. Barnett, 319 Ill. 403, 150 N.E. 290. Moreover, defendant did not interpose any objection to their exclusion from the grand jury, so far as the common-law record discloses, either by a challenge to the array or a motion to quash the indictment, although it affirmatively appears from the record that he was ‘furnished with a copy of the indictment in this cause, and lists of the names of the witnesses and jurors,’ at the time of his arraignment. Nor did he make any objection to the petit jury upon the ground that women were not included. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, we cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Petropoulos
...the evidence show it to have taken place at a time prior to the indictment and not barred by the statute of limitations. People v. Rohde, 403 Ill. 41, 85 N.E.2d 24; People v. Schmidt, 10 Ill.2d 221, 228, 139 N.E.2d 726; People v. Evans, 24 Ill.2d 215, 218, 181 N.E.2d 80. If the indictment d......
-
People v. Valentine
...People v. Williams, 3 Ill.2d 79, 119 N.E.2d 731; Liberty Nat. Bk. of Chicago v. Metrick, 410 Ill. 429, 102 N.E.2d 308; People v. Rohde, 403 Ill. 41, 85 N.E.2d 24, cert. denied 338 U.S. 833, 70 S.Ct. 43, 94 L.Ed. 508; rehearing denied 338 U.S. 940, 70 S.Ct. 338, 94 L.Ed. 580; and, importantl......
-
Contest of Election for Offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor Held at General Election on November 2, 1982, In re
...212, People v. Cosper (1955), 5 Ill.2d 97, 125 N.E.2d 60, People v. Brand (1953), 415 Ill. 329, 114 N.E.2d 370, and People v. Rohde (1949), 403 Ill. 41, 85 N.E.2d 24, which have consistently held that a constitutional issue not raised by the parties is The majority also defensively states: ......
-
People v. Long, 14518
... ... Although the State is not required to prove the precise date on which the offense occurred, the indictment must at least give some indication as to when the offense [55 Ill.App.3d 772] occurred. People v. Rohde (1949), 403 Ill. 41, 85 N.E.2d 24; People v. Taylor (1945), 391 Ill. 11, 62 N.E.2d 683 ... In People v. Blanchett (1965), 33 Ill.2d 527, 212 N.E.2d 97, our supreme court held that the failure to specify an exact street address for the offense did not result in a void information ... ...