People v. Shick
| Decision Date | 23 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 52532 |
| Citation | 101 Ill.App.2d 377,243 N.E.2d 285 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Gloria Alice SHICK a/k/a Gloria Alice Skip a/k/a Gloria Alice Schick, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
John J. Stamos, Chicago, Elmer C. Kissane, James S. Veldman, Chicago, of counsel, for appellant.
Eiserman & McCurrie, LaGrange, for appellee.
This appeal is taken from an order entered on May 25, 1967, denying the State's motion for a continuance and granting instead the motion of the defendant, Gloria Alice Shick, for a discharge for want of prosecution, and entering judgment on that order.
On April 21, 1967, the Cook County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging the defendant with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the beating and subsequent death of one Shirley Muscanero. Defendant was arraigned on May 9, 1967, and entered a plea of not guilty. On May 25, the case came up for trial in the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court, whereupon the defendant, through her attorney, requested a pre-trial conference in the judge's chambers. No record was made of that conference.
At the conclusion of the conference the defendant, through her attorney, stated that she was prepared to go to trial, but the State's Attorney moved for a continuance based upon the fact that two of his material witnesses were not present and he had allowed his other witnesses to leave. The State's Attorney stated that at the pre-trial conference the court had told him he could send the remaining witnesses home. However, it appears that all of the witnesses except the two previously referred to were in court. The court denied the State's motion and the defendant thereupon made a motion for dismissal. The court granted the motion and ordered that the defendant be discharged. From that order the State takes the instant appeal.
In this court the State contends that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying its motion for a continuance, and that the court improperly granted defendant's motion discharging defendant for want of prosecution.
We find it unnecessary to discuss the State's first contention since we have decided that the judgment of the trial court discharging the defendant was improper. A trial does not begin until the accused has been arraigned and the jury impaneled and sworn unless the accused has waived his right to a jury trial pursuant to chapter 38, section 115--1, Illinois Revised Statutes (1967). 1 People v. Friason, 22 Ill.2d 563; Jordan v. Savage, 88 Ill.App.2d 251. Chapter 38, section 115--4(k), Illinois Revised Statutes (1967) provides that a trial court may not enter a judgment of acquittal and discharge a defendant at least until the State has had an opportunity to present all of its evidence. 2 In the instant case, the record does not indicate that the trial had commenced, nor that the defendant had waived his right to a jury trial. Consequently, since the trial had not commenced, the State had no opportunity to present its evidence and the trial court simply had no authority to discharge the defendant at that point in the proceedings.
So far as has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Edwards
...Ill.Dec. 784, 394 N.E.2d 1161; People v. Dellecarto (1978), 67 Ill.App.3d 490, 24 Ill.Dec. 35, 384 N.E.2d 902; and People v. Shick (1968), 101 Ill.App.2d 377, 243 N.E.2d 285. People v. Deems, supra, appears to provide the necessary guidelines for an appropriate disposition of this case. In ......
-
People v. Vest
...not to be considered in light of any other considerations. Rand, defendant's principal authority, and People v. Shick, 101 Ill.App.2d 377, 378-79, 243 N.E.2d 285 (1968), the case on which the Rand court relied, although not themselves double-jeopardy cases, draw primarily on cases consideri......
-
People v. Deems
...of the grounds enumerated in section 114-1 was rejected and to that extent, Lawson reversed the reasoning of People v. Shick, 101 Ill.App.2d 377, 243 N.E.2d 285 and People v. Abel, 21 Ill.App.3d 314, 315 N.E.2d 136 and its progeny, which includes The State's efforts at transforming a judgme......
-
People v. Rand
...60 Ill.Dec. 239, 432 N.E.2d 1138. A trial is deemed to have commenced after the jury is impaneled and sworn. People v. Shick, 101 Ill.App.2d 377, 379, 243 N.E.2d 285 (1968). Thus, the trial court has discretion to deny a jury waiver after the jury is impaneled and sworn, even if testimony h......