People v. Terry

• Decision Date: 16 June 1937
• Docket Number: No. 24109.,24109.
• Citation: People v. Terry, 366 Ill. 520, 9 N.E.2d 322 (Ill. 1937)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. TERRY et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

366 Ill. 520

9 N.E.2d 322

PEOPLE

v.TERRY et al.

No. 24109.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1937.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Charles H. Miller, Judge.

Harry Terry, George Carter, and Elmer Auten were convicted of murder, and they bring error.

Affirmed.

R. E. Smith, of Benton, for plaintiffs in error.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Creighton, State's Atty., of Fairfield, and A. B. Dennis, of Danville, for the People.

JONES, Justice.

Harry Terry, George Carter, and Elmer Auten were indicted for murder in the circuit court of Wayne county. They pleaded guilty and each was sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of his natural life. They have prosecuted a writ of error from this court to review their conviction.

Three grounds are urged for reversal: (1) The court erred in not appointing counsel to represent them before any steps affecting their rights were taken; (2) they were not properly arraigned; and (3) the record fails to show that the indictment was returned into open court by the grand jury.

The common-law record as presented by defendants omitted any showing as to the return of the indictment, but a complete record supplied by the People, by leave of this court, shows the impaneling of the grand jury and the return of the indictment in this cause into open court. It is difficult to understand why such a matter could escape notice or be urged by counsel for plaintiffs in error.

The record shows that on the day of the return of the bench warrants, each of the defendants, in open court, filed a written waiver of the right of trial by jury. Each of them was presented with a copy of the indictment, a list of the jurors and witnesses, waived arraignment, and entered a plea of guilty. They were advised by the court of the effect, nature, and consequences of their pleas and persisted therein. The court then appointed two members of the bar to represent them. The defendants retired with their counsel and afterwards returned into court. They again presented their pleas of guilty and the jury waivers were refiled, the evidence heard, and the pleas of guilty accepted by the court. Thereupon the court found them guilty of murder as charged in the indictment and imposed sentence.

In support of their claim that they were not properly arraigned, defendants cite Yundt v. People, 65 Ill. 372, and People v. Kennedy, 303 Ill. 423, 135 N.E. 762. Convictions in those cases were reversed because the record failed to show any plea. We held that without a plea there was no issue, and nothing for the jury to pass upon. We have held the same way in the following cases: Johnson v. People, 22 Ill. 314;Parkinson v. People, 135 Ill. 401, 25 N.E. 764,10 L.R.A. 91;Hoskins v. People, 84 Ill. 87, 25 Am.Rep. 433. None of the cases cited has any bearing upon the sufficiency of an arraignment.

Under ancient practice, the prisoner, when called to the bar of the court, was required to hold up his hand as owning himself to be of the name by which he was called. The indictment was read to him in the English tongue that he might understand the charge; after which it was demanded of him whether he be guilty or not guilty of the crime whereof he stood indicted. This court has repeatedly held that the ancient formality attending the arraignment of a prisoner is disused in our practice. The statutory (Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 38, § 736a) requirement of furnighing the prisoner a copy of the indictment is a better means of information to him of the character of the charge than reading it to him, and replaces the old custom. Fitzpatrick v. People, 98 Ill. 259; People v. Kennedy, supra; Kelly v. People, 132 Ill. 363, 24 N.E. 56. The formalities once attendant upon the arraignment of a prisoner are not now required, and it is sufficient if that which is done amounts, in substance, to an arraignment. Parkinson v. People, supra.

The office of an arraignment is to give the accused an opportunity to know the nature of the charge against him and to answer whether he is guilty or not guilty. The defendants here were informed of the nature of the charge against them by copies of the indictment furnished them. After conference with counsel appointed for them, they answered the charge. All the purposes of the ancient formal arraignment were fulfilled. That was sufficient. People v. Evenow, 355 Ill. 451, 189 N.E. 368;People v. Darr, 255 Ill. 456, 99 N.E. 651. It is...