People v. Sirinsky
| Decision Date | 04 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42419,42419 |
| Citation | 265 N.E.2d 505,47 Ill.2d 183 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Larry SIRINSKY, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Robert S. Bailey and Harvey B. Bass, Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (Morton F. Friedman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert A. Novelle and James S. Veldman, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
The defendant was found guilty in the circuit court of Cook County of operating a motor vehicle on November 28, 1966, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of section 47 of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic (U.A.R.T.). (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 95 1/2, par. 144.) A fine of $100 was imposed and on appeal to the Appellate Court, First Judicial District, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. (People v. Sirinsky, 110 Ill.App.2d 338, 249 N.E.2d 229.) We have granted the defendant's petition for leave to appeal.
The background of the question appearing here was described in the appellate court's opinion:
'The traffic citation, which stood as the complaint against defendant at trial, was issued to him by a City of Evanston police officer for the traffic violation which occurred in that city. Although the citation form bore an open square whereby the could have been designated as the plaintiff, the officer checked the square next to 'City of _ _, a Municipal Corporation,' and wrote in the word 'Evanston' as the plaintiff. Thus, when read in its pertinent portions consecutively, secutively, the complaint reads, 'City of Evanston, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Sirinsky, Larry A., Defendant, * * * did then drive and operate a certain motor vehicle upon a public highway of this State, Howard Street, situated within the Village or Town or City, County and State aforesaid, and did then and there unlawfully violate section 47 U.A.R.T., State of Illinois, by (describe) Driving under influence of intoxicating beverage.' The citation form also contained an open square whereby the violation of a 'Local Ordinance' could have been designated instead of the State statute.
'Except for the appearance of counsel filed on behalf of the defendant, which left blank the space where the name of plaintiff in the action is normally inserted, all matters in the record of this case are entitled
The defendant contends that the complaint was fatally defective in that it was brought in the name of the city of Evanston for a violation of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic, which is, of course, a State statute. Thus, it is said, he was not sufficiently informed of the charges against him and the defect in the caption of the complaint hindered the preparation of his defense and failed to protect him against future jeopardy through a second prosecution. An offense charged must be sufficiently set forth so that the accused is apprised of the charge against him, enabled properly to prepare his defense and use any judgment against him as a bar to a future prosecution for the same offense. (People v. Griffin, 36 Ill.2d 430, 223 N.E.2d 158; People v. Beeftink, 21 Ill.2d 282, 171 N.E.2d 632.) It will be sufficient if an indictment or complaint charges the offense in the language of the statute 'when the words of the statute so far particularize the offense that by their use alone an accused is apprised with reasonable certainty of the precise offense...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Busch v. State
...in the body of the charging document. Under this circumstance, the caption should be disregarded. See People v. Sirinsky, 47 Ill.2d 183, 186-88, 265 N.E.2d 505, 506-07 (1970); People v. Williams, 37 Ill.2d 521, 524-25, 229 N.E.2d 495, 497 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 948, 88 S.Ct. 1036, 1......
-
People v. Tellez-Valencia
...of another offense. Thus, the cases cited by the State do not apply to the case at bar. In addition, the State cites People v. Sirinsky, 47 Ill.2d 183, 265 N.E.2d 505 (1970), for the proposition that a charging instrument may be amended during appeal. However, Sirinsky is factually distingu......
-
People v. McClurg, 4-89-0692
...that this court allow an amendment of the complaint by furnishing the phrase 'of intoxicating liquor,' and for authority cite People v. Sirinsky, 47 Ill.2d 183. In Sirinsky, the court observed that the caption of the complaint was amended in this court on oral argument to reflect that the P......
-
People v. Lee
...v. Grieco, 44 Ill.2d 407, 409, 255 N.E.2d 897, 898. the principle that an indictment is sufficient if it: See also People v. Sirinsky, 47 Ill.2d 183, 186, 265 N.E.2d 505. Note also the informative exposition in People v. Coleman, 49 Ill.2d 565, 570, 571, 276 N.E.2d 721. Note also People ex ......