People v. Shiffman
| Decision Date | 22 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21436.,21436. |
| Citation | 350 Ill. 243,182 N.E. 760 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SHIFFMAN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Joseph B. David, Judge.
Abe Shiffman was convicted of grand larceny, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.Milton D. Smith and William W. Smith, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Defendant, Abe Shiffman, was indicted at the November term, 1931, of the criminal court of Cook county for grand larceny. He was admitted to bail in the sum of $5,000. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of from one to ten years. A writ of error was issued out of this court to review the proceedings.
The cause was regularly placed on the calendar for trial December 21, 1931. When it was reached, neither the defendant, his bondsman, nor his attorney was present. The prosecuting witness was also absent. The trial judge asked whether the defendant was on bail or in jail, and was informed by the clerk that the defendant was on bail. The judge then asked if the bondsman had been notified, and was advised that he had been. The judge inquired for the prosecuting witness. The assistant state's attorney replied that he guessed the defendant had made his peace with the prosecuting witness. Further inquiry by the judge revealed that the prosecuting witness had not been subpoenaed. When this disclosure was made, the assistant state's attorney asked for a week's continuance. The judge had ample reason for suspecting the case was not to be put to trial. He was justified in using the power of his office to see that justice did not miscarry. Defendant's bond was declared forfeited, and a capias was issued. Bail was raised to $20,000, and the court ordered subpoenas to issue returnable the next morning. At that time the defendant and his bondsman appeared. The forfeiture was set aside, and defendant was taken into custody. The prosecuting witness, Henry Stremal, having appeared in answer to a subpoena, was questioned at length about whether any attempt had been made to keep him from appearing as a witness. He stated that the defendant had picked his pocket of $193, and later, when released on bail, returned that sum to him and gave him $7 in addition. The witness also said that the defendant told him to buy a new hat with the $7 and not to appear in court. The trial judge was greatly incensed over the situation, and ordered the defendant to be brought into court and a jury impaneled for an immediate trial. When the defendant appeared, the judge asked him if he had a lawyer. He replied, ‘Cantwell.’ Cantwell was not present, but the judge, without any delay, appointed the public defender to represent the defendant. Thereupon the defendant told the judge he desired a change of venue, and the judge replied, ‘You will get nothing.’ The public defender was present in the courtroom, and expressed a wish to talk with the defendant. The judge allowed five minutes for that purpose, but would not permit the conversation to take place in a private room. As soon as the conference between the attorney and client had terminated, the attorney again advised the judge that the defendant desired a change of venue. The judge replied, ‘He won't get anything.’ The public defender protested that he had not had an opportunity to prepare for trial and that defendant had employed an attorney, to whom he had paid a fee. The judge insisted upon an immediate trial, and a jury was impaneled and sworn. He conducted a considerable part of the direct examination of the prosecuting witness. At the conclusion of the evidence offered by the people, the public defender stated to the judge, in the absence of the jury, that the defendant ‘feels that he does not want to take the witness stand, that he is not receiving a fair trial, and that he is being rushed into the trial.’ The judge then indulged in a severe criticism of the defendant and all pickpockets.
Many errors have been assigned, but it would serve no useful purpose to discuss all of them. It is sufficient to say that the trial judge had become so provoked because of what appeared to him to be a deliberate attempt to interfere with a judicial proceeding that he made a number of remarks which he should have omitted.
The right to a change of venue from a judge in a criminal case on compliance with the statute is absolute. People v. Cohen, 268 Ill. 416, 109 N. E. 259;Cantwell v. People, 138 Ill. 602, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Stewart v. Blair
... ... State, 191 S.W.2d 445; Commonwealth v ... O'Keefe, 298 Pa. 169, 173, 148 A. 73; State v ... Ferress, 16 La. Ann. 424; People v. Shiffman, ... 350 Ill. 243, 182 N.E. 760; North v. People, 139 ... Ill. 81, 28 N.E. 966; State v. Pool, 50 La. Ann ... 449, 23 So. 503; ... ...
-
Dominique F., In re
...to the principle that it is not for the trial judge to decide if he or she entertains a prejudice against a party. (People v. Shiffman (1932), 350 Ill. 243, 246, 182 N.E. 760.) In keeping with this principle, the rule was established that a trial judge, when properly petitioned for a change......
-
Coplon v. United States
...between them in a private room, and insisted on immediate trial, it was held that a fair trial had been denied. People v. Shiffman, 1932, 350 Ill. 243, 182 N.E. 760. In New York it has been said that: "* * It is also equally true that the right to a private interview by a person accused of ......
-
People v. Husar
...between them in a private room and insisted on immediate trial over the objection of court-appointed counsel. See People v. Shiffman, 350 Ill. 243, 182 N.E. 760. Instead, this is a case in which an assistant public defender was appointed for two defendants, was given the file of the case, w......