People v. Tucker
Decision Date | 26 January 1971 |
Docket Number | Gen. No. 55167 |
Citation | 131 Ill.App.2d 598,268 N.E.2d 191 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jefferson B. TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago, Robert A. Novelle, Martin Moltz, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel, for appellant.
Howard T. Savage, Chicago, for appellee.
A jury found defendant guilty of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was fined $100.00 and his driver's license was revoked. Defendant appeals from the judgment on the verdict and initially contends that the complaint fails to charge a violation of law.
The complaint charged that defendant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway in violation of Section 47 of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways, Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 95 1/2, § 144 (1965) by 'driving under the influence.'
In People v. Stringfield, 37 Ill.App.2d 344, 346, 185 N.E.2d 381, 383 (1962) this court stated:
(
This court further stated at page 348, 185 N.E.2d at 383:
'The information was void and the conviction must be reversed.'
The People move that this court allow an amendment of the complaint by furnishing the phrase 'of intoxicating liquor,' and for authority cite People v. Sirinsky, Ill., 265 N.E.2d 505, 1970. In Sirinsky, the court observed that the caption of the complaint was amended in this court on oral argument to reflect that the People of the State of Illinois, rather than the Municipality of Evanston was the complainant. In the case at bar the sought after amendment pertains to a substantive rather than formal amendment. In People v. Billingsley, 67 Ill.App.2d 292, 213 N.E.2d 765 (1966) this court expressed language pertinent to the case at bar. At page 301, 213 N.E.2d at page 770, we said:
Section 111--5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, Chap. 38, par. 111--5) authorizes amendment at anytime because of formal, but not substantive defects in an indictment, information or complaint. See People v. Hall, 55 Ill.App.2d 255, 259, 204 N.E.2d 473 (4th Dist. 1964). However, the complaint in the case at bar was defective in a substantive matter in that it did not allege a criminal offense. It was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Dunskus
...even if defendant does not claim prejudice. Utt, 122 Ill.App.3d at 275, 77 Ill.Dec. 840, 461 N.E.2d 463; accord People v. Tucker, 131 Ill.App.2d 598, 268 N.E.2d 191 (1971). We decline to follow the holdings in Utt and Tucker, as we conclude that they mischaracterize the law. Illinois courts......
-
People v. Tellez-Valencia
...it did not state an offense. Johnson, 43 Ill.App.3d at 561, 2 Ill.Dec. 427, 357 N.E.2d 594. See also, e.g., People v. Tucker, 131 Ill.App.2d 598, 599, 268 N.E.2d 191 (1971) (complaint for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor was defective for leaving out the phrase "of intoxic......
-
People v. Leach, Gen. No. 54922
...a conviction. People v. Billingsley, Supra. Where a conviction rests on such a complaint, we will reverse without remand. People v. Tucker, Ill.App., 268 N.E.2d 191. II. The Resisting or Obstructing The complaint which purported to charge defendant with resisting or obstructing a peace offi......
-
People v. McClurg, 4-89-0692
...intended to permit the State to vivify a void charge." (Heard, 47 Ill.2d at 505, 266 N.E.2d at 343.) In People v. Tucker (1971), 131 Ill.App.2d 598, 598-99, 268 N.E.2d 191, 191-92, the following decision was "A jury found defendant guilty of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence......