People v. Williams

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: KLINGBIEL
• Citation: People v. Williams, 196 N.E.2d 483, 30 Ill.2d 125 (Ill. 1963)
• Decision Date: 26 November 1963
• Docket Number: No. 37240,37240
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, v. John WILLIAMS et al., Defendants in Error.

Page 483

196 N.E.2d 483

30 Ill.2d 125

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, v. John WILLIAMS et al., Defendants in Error.

No. 37240.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 26, 1963.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 22, 1964.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Edward J. Hladis and Marvin E. Aspen, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Wayne D. Johnson and R. Marlin Smith, Chicago, for defendants in error.

KLINGBIEL, Chief Justice:

The grand jury for the criminal court of Cook County returned an indictment against John Williams and Robert Boney charging them with the crime of attempted burglary. The trial court entered an order quashing the indictment and the People have brought the case here to review that order.

The indictment charged that the defendants, in the county of Cook, attempted to break and enter 'a certain building, to-wit: factory of Jacob Vondracek there situate', with intent to steal Vondracek's property. The trial court ruled that the indictment was defective by reason of its failure to give a more specific location of the building.

Persons charged with criminal offenses have a constitutional right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against them. (Ill.Const., art. II, sec. 9.) The purpose of this guaranty is to secure to the accused such specific description of the offense as will enable him to fully prepare for his defense and to plead the judgment in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. People v. Beeftink, 21 Ill.2d 282, 171 N.E.2d 632; People v. Peters, 10 Ill.2d 577, 141 N.E.2d 9.

In this case the question of the sufficiency of the indictment was raised before trial by a motion to quash. So far as we are aware, it is the first case in this court in which the question has been presented in this way. Cases like People v. Garkus, 358 Ill. 406, 192 N.E. 653, and People v. Jackson, 23 Ill.2d 475, 179 N.E.2d 9, in which the alleged defect was not raised by motion to quash or motion in arrest of judgment, or was waived by a plea of guilty, are therefore not in point. In other cases cited by the People where we held that the indictment was sufficient, the issue was the ownership of the building, rather than its location. Cf. People v. Furman, 26 Ill.2d 334, 186 N.E.2d 262; People v. Lymore, 25 Ill.2d 305, 185 N.E.2d 158; People v. Evans, 24 Ill.2d 11, 179 N.E.2d 657.

We take judicial notice of the fact that Cook County is largely a...