People v. Swinson
| Decision Date | 18 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 31372,31372 |
| Citation | 92 N.E.2d 758,406 Ill. 233 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SWINSON et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Rex Swinson, Kenneth Swinson, and Arvel Swinson, pro sese.
Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General, and George W. Kasserman, Jr., State's Attorney, of Newton (Harry L. Pate, of Tuscola, of counsel), for the People.
The plaintiffs in error, appearing pro sese, obtained a writ of error to review a judgment convicting them of larceny in Jasper County. The grand jury, by a single indictment of one count, jointly charged them with the larceny of corn valued at $147. The jury returned a verdict against each, finding him guilty of larceny in the manner and form as charged in the indictment, but did not, in those verdicts fix the value of the corn stolen. The errors assigned arose only on the common-law record. That record, as filed by them, being faulty, the defendant in error filed a correct and authenticated copy. The plaintiffs in error concede the corrected record disposes of all their assignments of error except the one based on the failure of the jury, in the verdicts, to fix the value of the corn.
Plaintiffs in error contend that when they were charged in the indictment with larceny of corn of the value of $147, it was necessary for the jury to find the value of the corn taken to be in excess of $15 in order to support the judgment and their subsequent sentence to the penitentiary. The defendant in error argues since there was only one count in the indictment, a verdict of guilty of larceny in manner and form as charged therein, plus the finding of their ages, is all the law requires.
The People rely upon People v. Orlando, 380 Ill. 107, 43 N.E.2d 677, involving an indictment charging misconduct in connection with a judicial election in violation of section 9 of article 6 of the City Elections Act. The verdict returned found Orlando guilty of advising, procuring and abetting the falsifying of a poll list as charged in the indictment. He contended this verdict to be insufficient becausd when a verdict attempts to enumerate the elements of the crime, all of those elements must be enumerated; therefore, the verdict returned should have included that he was not an officer, that he acted willfully, and that he aided and abetted the judge of election. The genesis of objection in the Orlando case is found in People v. Lee, 237 Ill. 272, 86 N.E. 573, and People v. Lemen, 231 Ill. 193, 83 N.E. 147, 148. We said in the Lee case, that while verdicts are not construed as strictly as pleadings, they should have a reasonable intendment, receive a reasonable construction, and not be set aside unless from necessity which originates in doubt as to their meaning, or because of the immateriality of the issues found, or a failure to find upon some material issue involved.
In the Lemen case defendant faced an indictment of six counts-two for assault with intent to commit murder; two for an assault with a deadly weapon and intent to inflict bodily injury, no considerable provocation then and there appearing; and two charging an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily injury, the circumstances showing an abandoned and malignant heart. The jury returned a verdict finding Lemen 'guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily injury, as charged in the indictment, * * *.' This was a literal following of the language of an erroneous instruction on a verdict form to be used for a finding of guilty on this type of assault. We said a verdict must be responsive to the issues, must contain either in itself or by reference to the indictment, every material fact constituting the crime. The verdict that was returned did not contain either by direct statement, or by reference, all that was charged in any count of the indictment, or all which would constitute the crime. The difficulty with the wording of the verdicts in the Lee and Lemen cases was that each verdict limited the finding of guilty to a few facts, these being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mack
......Swinson (1950), 406 Ill. 233, 235, 92 N.E.2d 758.) It has also been noted that all parts of the record will be searched and interpreted together in determining the meaning of a verdict. (People v. Keagle (1967), 37 Ill.2d 96, 102, 224 N.E.2d 834; People v. Pignatelli (1950), 405 Ill. 302, 305, 90 ......
-
People v. Smith
......955, 658 N.E.2d 437, quoting People v. Swinson, 406 Ill. 233, 235, 92 N.E.2d 758 (1950). Further, we held that all parts of the record may be searched and interpreted together in determining the meaning of a verdict. Mack, 167 Ill.2d at 537, 212 Ill. Dec. 955, 658 N.E.2d 437. . In Griffin, our Supreme Court, quoting ......
-
United States v. Gordon
......Brown v. People", 173 Ill. 34, 37, 50 N.E. 106; People v. Jackson, 312 Ill. 611, 612, 144 N.E. 314; People v. Swinson, 406 Ill. 233, 236, 92 N.E.2d 758. . \xC2"......
-
People v. Leonora
....... The cases cited by the defendant on this point are inapposite. In People v. Swinson (1950), 406 Ill. 233, 92 N.E.2d 758, our supreme court reversed the defendant's conviction because it could not be determined from the general verdict of guilty what offense the defendant had been found guilty of, grand larceny or petit larceny. Each offense was punished differently. The general ......