People v. Wheeler
| Decision Date | 11 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 30924.,30924. |
| Citation | 84 N.E.2d 832,403 Ill. 78 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WHEELER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Greene County; Clem Smith, Judge.
William Wheeler was convicted of larceny and he brings error.
Affirmed.
William Wheeler, pro se.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (L. A. Mehrhoff, State's Atty., of Carrollton, of counsel), for the People.
On March 28, 1947, plaintiff in error, William Wheeler, was sentenced to the Illinois State Penitentiary by the circuit court of Greene County for the offense of larceny. He brings this writ of error pro se.
The assignment of errors urges four grounds for reversal. (1) The trial court erred in consolidating the offenses of embezzlement, larceny by bailee, and grand larceny, in one proceeding. (2) The grand jury could not lawfully return an indictment found on the testimony of only one witness. (3) The judgment is erroneous because it was rendered on a general finding of larceny where the indictment charged only embezzlement. (4) The court erred in giving oral instructions in lieu of written instructions as required by statute.
Only the common-law record has been presented for review. This does not contain anything regarding the instructions or other proceedings occurring at the trial. The court, therefore, cannot pass upon the fourth assignment of error, since there is nothing before the court from which the error assigned could be determined. People v. Burnett, 395 Ill. 179, 69 N.E.2d 856.
The indictment contains two counts. One count alleges that plaintiff in error fraudulently and feloniously embezzled and fraudulently converted to his own use one bull of the value of $150, the personalchattel property of one Charles H. Brown, which had been loaned to plaintiff in error. The other count was practically the same except it charged that the personal property of one Charles Brown had been entrusted to plaintiff in error as bailee. An indictment in substantially the same form has been held sufficient to charge the offense of larceny by bailee. McCracken v. People, 209 Ill. 215, 70 N.E. 749. Plaintiff in error was charged with only one offense and his complaint that he was compelled to defend himself against charges of three separate crimes is without foundation in the record. However, plaintiff in error's contention would not have been good even if the indictment had contained three separate counts charging the offenses of larceny by bailee, embezzlement, and grand larceny. The provisions of the statute (Ill.Rev.Stat.1945, chap. 38, pars. 207, 395), which define the offense of larceny by embezzlement and larceny by bailee, declare that one who commits such offenses shall be deemed guilty of larceny. While each constitutes a separate offense under the statute and evidence of one offense will not support a conviction under a count charging the other offense, yet a general finding of guilty of larceny is sufficient if the evidence warrants a conviction under any count. People v. Moses, 375 Ill. 336, 31 N.E.2d 585;People v. Greben, 352 Ill. 582, 186 N.E. 162. Plaintiff in error was charged with the single offense of larceny by bailee and was found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rodgers
...(1971), 49 Ill.2d 14, 36, 273 N.E.2d 380, 392.) Defendants seek to distinguish Creque and earlier cases (see, e. g., People v. Wheeler (1949), 403 Ill. 78, 84 N.E.2d 832; People v. Bladek (1913), 259 Ill. 69, 102 N.E. 243), and contend that the return of an indictment which is not supported......
-
People v. Derrico
...witnesses before that body were incompetent or all of the testimony on which the indictment was returned was incompetent. People v. Wheeler, 403 Ill. 78, 84 N.E.2d 832; People v. Gould, 345 Ill. 288, 178 N.E. 133; People v. Duncan, 261 Ill. 339, 103 N.E. 1043; People v. Bladek, 259 Ill. 69,......
-
People v. Diaz
...separate verdict forms for each count. Our holding in Kulpa is consistent with our holding in the instant case. Accord People v. Wheeler (1949), 403 Ill. 78, 84 N.E.2d 832; People v. Diekelmann (1937), 367 Ill. 372, 11 N.E.2d 420; People v. Wurbs (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 360, 347 N.E.2d Defend......
-
People v. Jones
... ... People v. Looney, 314 Ill. 150, 145 N.E. 365; People v. Gould, 345 Ill. 288, 178 N.E. 133; People v. Price, 371 Ill. 137, 20 N.E.2d 61; People v. Wheeler, 403 Ill. 78, ... 84 N.E.2d 832; People v. Derrico, 409 Ill 453, 100 N.E.2d 607; People v. Lambersky, 410 Ill. 451, 102 N.E.2d 326; People v. Orr, 10 Ill.2d 95, 139 N.E.2d 212. The use of the word 'incompetent' with reference to both the witnesses and testimony before a grand jury is misleading ... ...