People v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 14 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--238,74--238 |
| Citation | 322 N.E.2d 97,24 Ill.App.3d 907 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles THOMAS, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
C. Brent Bode, State's Atty., Tazewell County, Pekin, for plaintiff-appellant.
Patrick Tuite, Ltd., Chicago, for defendant-appellee.
A four-count Information was filed charging Defendant, Charles Thomas, with obscenity in violation of Illinois Revised Statutes, 1973, ch. 38, par. 11--20(a)(3). The State appeals pursuant to Illinois Revised Statutes, 1973, ch. 110A, par. 604(a), from an order of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County dismissing the cause for want of prosecution.
Both parties joined in a motion for continuance based partially on the unavailability of essential witnesses. The motion was denied and the trial judge, Judge Reardon, called for voir dire examination of prospective jurors. The Assistant State's Attorney declined to proceed with voir dire and defense counsel renewed his motion for continuance. Judge Reardon then dismissed the case for 'want of prosecution' and the People appeal from this ruling. Defendant did not file a brief on appeal.
The sole issue here is whether the court on its own motion before trial could dismiss the charges for want of prosecution. In accord with People v. Guido, 11 Ill.App.3d 1067, 297 N.E.2d 18, People v. Hoover, 12 Ill.App.3d 25, 297 N.E.2d 400, People v. Barksdale, 110 Ill.App.2d 163, 249 N.E.2d 165 and People v. Shick, 101 Ill.App.2d 377, 243 N.E.2d 285 we hold that in the absence of one of the grounds set forth in Illinois Revised Statutes, 1973, ch. 38, par. 114--1 the action of the trial court was improper. Where the motion for a continuance has been properly denied the case should be called for trial and if no evidence or insufficient evidence is presented by the People than a judgment of acquittal may be entered by the Court.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Edwards
...employed by the trial judge to achieve the result of a dismissal with prejudice for want of prosecution which (People v.) Thomas ((1975), 24 Ill.App.3d 907, 322 N.E.2d 97) had held he did not have the authority to order. * * "The interests protected by the double jeopardy clause simply are ......
-
People v. Verstat
...Ill.App.3d 1067, 297 N.E.2d 18), or where a State motion for continuance joined by the defendant has been denied. (People v. Thomas (1975), 24 Ill.App.3d 907, 322 N.E.2d 97.) The amendment to subsection (e) of 114-4, yet untested in any Illinois reviewing court and which purports to authori......
-
People v. Whitlow
...114-1(a)(1-10). In view of this rule the defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied. See also People v. Thomas (1975), 24 Ill.App.3d 907, 322 N.E.2d 97. The defendants Whitlow, Brewer, Delfino and Gibson further contend that the trial court erred in denying a motion to......
-
People v. Deems
...513 (5th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S.Ct. 2168, 48 L.Ed.2d 795 (1976). This court's decision in People v. Thomas (3d Dist.1975), 24 Ill.App.3d 907, 322 N.E.2d 97, is cited by defendant. In Thomas both the State and the defendant requested a continuance and both motions were ......