People v. Sims

• Decision Date: 20 March 1946
• Docket Number: No. 29407.,29407.
• Citation: 66 N.E.2d 86,393 Ill. 238
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SIMS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

393 Ill. 238

66 N.E.2d 86

PEOPLE

v.SIMS.

No. 29407.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 20, 1946.

Error to Circuit Court, Union County; H. A. Spann, Judge.

Charles C. Sims was convicted on a statutory charge of taking immoral, improper and indecent liberties with a certain female child of the age of fourteen years, and he brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

Paul D. Reese, of Jonesboro, for plaintiff in error.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and John Paul Davis, State's Atty., of Jonesboro, for the People.

THOMPSON, Chief Justice.

Charles C. Sims, plaintiff in error, was indicted and tried in the circuit court of Union county on a statutory charge of taking immoral, improper and indecent liberties with a certain female child of the age of fourteen years in violation of the Criminal Code. Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 38, par. 109. At the close of all the evidence, a motion to exclude same and to find the defendant not guilty was overruled and he was found guilty by a jury. After a verdict, motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied and plaintiff in error was sentenced to the penitentiary. To reverse the conviction and sentence this writ of error is prosecuted.

Counsel for plaintiff in error presents numerous alleged errors, but grouped together they present for consideration the following contentions in opposition to the judgment and sentence: (1) That the court should have quashed the indictment; (2) that a bill of particulars should have been furnished; (3) that the prosecution should have elected as to which count of the indictment it would rely upon for a conviction; (4) that improper evidence was admitted on the part of the People and proper evidence was refused on behalf of the defendant; (5) that improper instructions were given; (6) that the trial court erred in refusing to permit defendant to reopen his case and introduce certain exhibits; (7) that the court erred in overruling plaintiff in error's motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment; and (8) that the judgment of the trial court is not supported by the evidence.

It is first urged by plaintiff in error that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment on the ground that the indictment is insufficient to charge plaintiff in error with any crime whatever; that it fails to allege or set forth any facts sufficient to show that the defendant has actually taken any immoral, improper or indecent liberties with the child in question.

The indictment in this case charges that the defendant, Charles C. Sims, being a male person of the age of seventeen years and upwards, unlawfully and feloniously did then and there take certain immoral, improper and indecent liberties with a certain female child under the age of fifteen years and of, to-wit; the age of fourteen years, with intent then and there of arousing, appealing to and gratifying the lust, passions and sexual desires of him, the said Charles C. Sims. Further counts in the same language charged indecent liberties were taken with intent to gratify the lust, passions and sexual desires of the female child. And, also, in a separate count it was charged that indecent liberties were taken for the purpose of arousing the sexual desires of both the said Charles C. Sims and the said female child. Two of the counts alleged that he attempted to take such indecent liberties. The charge is made in the language of the statute.

Under section 6 of division XI of the Criminal Code, Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 38, par. 716, an indictment is sufficient which states an offense in the terms and language of the statute creating the offense or so plainly that the nature of the offense may be easily understood by the jury. In the construction of this section we have held that it is sufficient to charge the offense in the language of the statute when the words of the statute so far particularize the offense that by their use alone the defendant is notified with reasonable certainty of the precise offense with which he is charged. People v. Klemann, 383 Ill. 236, 48 N.E.2d 957;People v. Scattura, 238 Ill. 313, 87 N.E. 332;Strohm v. People, 160 Ill. 582, 43 N.E. 622. The indictment was substantially in the language of the statute and was entirely sufficient to notify the defendant of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. The motion to quash was properly overruled.

It is next contended that after the plaintiff in error had been arraigned, and prior to the commencement of the trial, a motion was presented to the trial court for a rule requiring the prosecution to furnish plaintiff in error with a bill of particulars specificially describing the acts alleged to have been committed which constitute the crime of taking indecent liberties or the crime of attempting to do so.

The indictment specifically charged that plaintiff in error had taken immoral, improper and indecent liberties with a child of a certain age with intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions or sexual desires of the said plaintiff in error, or of the said child or of both, and this certainly apprised the plaintiff in error of the offense with which he was charged. The purpose of a bill of particulars is to provide more particular averments in order to enable the defendant to understand the nature of the charges against him or to prepare his defense. People v. Diekelmann, 367 Ill. 372, 11 N.E.2d 420;People v. Payne, 359 Ill. 246, 194 N.E. 539;People v. Bain, 359 Ill. 455, 195 N.E. 42. It was never intended for the purpose of a disclosure of facts which would constitute evidence of the prosecution in advance of the trial. The record in this case discloses that at the time of the arrest of the plaintiff in error on said charges, he was given a preliminary hearing and at that time he testified he entered the bedroom of the prosecuting witness and put his knee on the bed where she was sleeping so he could see out of the window because he thought somebody was getting into the house. This was several months before he was brought to trial on the said charges and it is apparent he was sufficiently informed to understand the charges in the indictment and to prepare his defense accordingly. Whether the prosecution shall be required to give a bill of particulars in a given case rests in the discretion of the trial court, and only a clear abuse of that discretion in the denial of a motion is error. People v. Diekelmann, 367 Ill. 372, 11 N.E.2d 420;People v. Cox, 340 Ill. 111, 172 N.E. 64, 69 A.L.R. 1215. We do not find such abuse of that discretion in this record.

It is next contended that the court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error to compel the prosecution to make an election as to which count it would rely upon for a conviction; that the counts of the indictment, some charging the taking of indecent liberties and others charging attempts to take indecent liberties definitely charged different offenses and that each of the offenses charged is a felony. The indictment contained six counts of which the first four charged that plaintiff in error took immoral, improper and indecent liberties with the prosecuting witness on July 27, 1943, and the next two charged that on that date he attempted to take such liberties. From this it can readily be seen that...