People v. Stahl

Citation186 N.E.2d 349,26 Ill.2d 403
Decision Date30 November 1962
Docket NumberNo. 35960,35960
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Henry STAHL, Plaintiff in Error.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Sheldon W. Witcoff, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O'Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Rudolph L. Janega and Matthew J. Moran, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.

DAILY, Justice.

After a jury trial in the criminal court of Cook County, the defendant, Henry Stahl, was convicted of the crime of assaulting his former wife, Etta Whaley, with intent to kill and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than three nor more than eight years. He prosecutes this writ of error contending that he was entitled to discharge because he was not tried within four months of commitment, and that he was denied a fair trial by prejudicial remarks of the prosecutor during the closing argument.

Section 9 of article II of the Illinois constitution, S.H.A. guarantees to an accused in criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy public trial and section 18 of division XIII of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 38, par. 748), which implements the constitutional guarantee, provides in substance that where a defendant has not been admitted to bail, he must be tried or discharged within four months from the date of his commitment, unless he caused the delay. However, it is now firmly established that the constitutional right to a speedy trial is personal to the accused and may be waived by a failure to raise the question of delay in the trial court. (People v. Sweeney, 409 Ill. 223, 99 N.E.2d 143; People v. Utterback, 385 Ill. 239, 52 N.E.2d 775.) Similarly, it is now beyond question that in order to avail himself of the implementing statute, a defendant must make application for discharge prior to conviction. (People v. Brame, 6 Ill.2d 412, 128 N.E.2d 911; People v. Morris, 3 Ill.2d 437, 121 N.E.2d 810.) Unless such a showing is made, and the proceedings upon such application are properly preserved by a bill of exceptions, the record is insufficient upon which to present the question of delay in a defendant's trial. (People v. Farley, 408 Ill. 194, 96 N.E.2d 452; People v. Barnard, 398 Ill. 358, 75 N.E.2d 873.) The record here fails to disclose that defendant ever made application to the trial court for discharge for want of prosecution, or that the trial court was ever called upon to rule on the matter, with the consequence that the issue is not properly before us.

Furthermore, we note there was a delay in trial occasioned by defendant which would prevent his discharge. Defendant was arrested and committed on August 9, 1959, and although he was not tried until February 1, 1960, the record shows that upon defendant's application the cause was continued from November 5 to November 12, 1959, to permit him to obtain other counsel. Where a defendant requests or agrees to a continuance, it is well established that the four-months period stats again from the date to which the case is continued, (People v. Hayes, 23 Ill.2d 527, 179 N.E.2d 660; People v. Niemoth, 409 Ill. 111, 97 N.E.2d 733,) and the trial here was within the limits of the new four-months period.

Nor do we believe the prosecutor injected prejudicial error into the trial by his closing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 cases
  • People v. Albanese
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1984
    ...the defense counsel's objection to this statement, and no error resulted from this portion of the trial. See People v. Stahl (1962), 26 Ill.2d 403, 406, 186 N.E.2d 349. We do not agree with defendant's assertion that the prosecution misstated the evidence in rebuttal, thereby severely preju......
  • People v. Carlson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • April 18, 1980
    ...(1970), 44 Ill.2d 244, 248, 255 N.E.2d 432, cert. denied (1970), 398 U.S. 954, 90 S.Ct. 1881, 26 L.Ed.2d 296; People v. Stahl (1962), 26 Ill.2d 403, 406, 186 N.E.2d 349), where the extreme penalty for murder is fixed, even if proof of guilt is clear, there must be no prejudicial error commi......
  • People v. Bobe, 1-89-0878
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 27, 1992
    ...the rule that improper remarks do not constitute reversible error unless they result in substantial prejudice to the accused. (People v. Stahl, 26 Ill.2d 403, 406 ; People v. Swets, 24 Ill.2d 418, 423 ; People v. Berry, 18 Ill.2d 453, 458 .) Since we are of the opinion that the prosecutor's......
  • People v. Mazzone
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 13, 1977
    ...asserted on appeal would justify a reversal in this cause (People v. Berry (1960), 18 Ill.2d 453, 165 N.E.2d 257; People v. Stahl (1962), 26 Ill.2d 403, 186 N.E.2d 349; People v. Dukett (1974), 56 Ill.2d 432, 308 N.E.2d For the reasons stated, therefore, the judgment of the Circuit Court of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT