People v. Royal
| Decision Date | 31 July 1839 |
| Citation | 1839 WL 2816,1 Scam. 557,2 Ill. 557 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, plaintiffs in error,v.PEGGY ROYAL, defendant in error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
THIS was originally a suit before a justice of the peace for an assault and battery, and taken into the Circuit Court of Madison county by appeal. The Circuit Court, at the October term, 1832, the Hon. Theophilus W. Smith, presiding, reversed the proceedings before the justice, on the ground that the justice had no jurisdiction, the act under which the case was tried being repugnant to § 11, Article 8, of the State Constitution.
JAMES SEMPLE, Attorney General, for the plaintiffs in error.
J. B. THOMAS and D. PRICKET, for the defendant in error.
The only question presented in this case, and requisite to be determined, is, whether a writ of error can be prosecuted by the State, in a criminal case, where the judgment has been in favor of the defendant in the Court below.
The case seems to us to admit of but little argument.
It is true the defendant has joined in error and thereby presented the points made by the errors assigned, for the consideration of the Court; but this can not confer jurisdiction on this Court, in its appellate character, to determine these questions thus made. The Constitution of this State in the 11th Section of the 8th Article, has emphatically declared, “That no person shall for the same offense be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” or in other words, that he shall not be again tried for the same offense after an acquittal. In the present case, it appears the Circuit Court reversed the judgment of the justice of the peace and discharged the defendant from custody. It is manifest that in such a case this court has no jurisdiction over the cause, and that even a reversal of the judgment of the Circuit Court could not be of practicable utility. We can perceive no useful object to be gained even in such an event. In the case of The People against Reynolds, reported in 4th Hayward, 110, this point was expressly settled, and we think correctly. We are of opinion that the State could not prosecute the writ of error, and consequently that it is compulsory on this Court to dismiss the writ, without a motion for such purpose.
The writ of error is dismissed accordingly.
Writ of error dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Petropoulos
...criminal cases the State had no right to appeal or writ of error either at common law (People v. Dill, 2 Ill. 257 (1836); People v. Royal, 2 Ill. 557 (1839) on double jeopardy grounds), or under the statute of 1845 (People v. Barber, 348 Ill. 40, 41, 180 N.E. 633, 92 A.L.R. 1131, regardless......
-
People v. Barber
...or passed upon in any former decision of this court, it was held in People v. Dill, 1 Scam. 257 (decided in 1836) and likewise in People v. Royal, 1 Scam. 557 (decided in 1839), that the state cannot prosecute a writ of error in a criminal case. Both of these decisions were made prior to th......
-
Town of Greenfield v. Mook
...People, Breese, 340; Ward v. The People, 13 Ill. 637; President v. McKernan, 54 Wis. 487; Benuan v. The People, 101 Ill. 323; The People v. Peggy Royal, 1 Scam. 557; The People v. Dill, 1 Scam. 257; The People v. Neill, 74 Ill. 68; Zanone v. Mound City, 103 Ill. 555; Harris v. Supervisors, ......
-
People v. Raymond
...110; Com. v. Harrison, 2 Va. Cas. 202; State v. Kemp, 17 Wis. 690; State v. Burns, 18 Fla. 185; State v. Copeland, 65 Mo. 497; People v. Royal, 1 Scam. 557; U.S. Sanges, 12 S.Ct. 609. The right exists only when conferred by statute, and by 'one expressed in the most plain and unequivocal te......