People v. Woerly
| Decision Date | 28 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 44209,44209 |
| Citation | 278 N.E.2d 787,50 Ill.2d 327 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Kenneth W. WOERLY, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Harris & Harris, Macomb, for appellant.
William G. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Henry D. Sintzenich, State's Atty., for appellee.
Kenneth W. Woerly, the defendant, was fined $25 after his conviction of the offense of reckless driving (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 95 1/2, par. 145) in a bench trial on February 12, 1971, in the circuit court of McDonough County.
He has appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court erred in denying him a trial by jury, to which, he says, he had a right under the Illinois constitution of 1870, which was in force at the time of his trial, and the constitution of the United States.
We judge it will be unnecessary to consider whether the defendant had a constitutionally founded right to a jury trial, as he had a right by statute to trial by jury. In a resembling situation in People ex rel. Filkin v. Flessner, 48 Ill.2d 54, 56, 268 N.E.2d 376, 377, where a defendant accused of speeding had claimed a constitutional right to a jury, we observed: 'Constitutional questions apart, it appears that there was a statutory right to trial by jury here (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, par. 103--6, ch. 38, par. 102--15 and ch. 95 1/2, par. 234) * * *.'
Section 103--6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, par. 103--6) provides: 'Every person accused of an offense shall have the right to a trial by jury unless understandingly waived by defendant in open court.' 'Offense' is defined in section 102--15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, par. 102--15) as 'a violation of any penal statute of this State.' Section 137(a) of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 95 1/2, par. 234) states: 'It is a misdemeanor for any person to violate any provision of this Act unless such violation is by this Act or other law of this State declared to be a felony.' Section 137(b) provides for penalties which range from a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $100, or imprisonment for not more than 10 days for a first conviction to a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 or by imprisonment for not more than 6 months or both for a third or subsequent conviction under described circumstances.
The statute conferred a right to trial by jury and we need not consider the further question whether the defendant had this right under either or both constitutions.
The People acknowledge that a penal statute is involved but seeking to avoid the force of People ex rel. Filkin v. Flessner, 48 Ill.2d 54, 268 N.E.2d 376, contend that if there is seeming statutory authority for a trial by jury here, the legislature acted in violation of our constitution of 1870. The People attempt to base this argument on section 5 of article II of that constitution, S.H.A., which in part provided: 'The right of trial by jury, as heretofore enjoyed, shall remain inviolate * * *.' It is said that this language limited the right to trial by jury as it existed at common law. Brewster v. People, 183 Ill. 143, 55 N.E. 640, and Paulsen v. People, 195 Ill. 507, 63 N.E. 144, are read, and mistakenly, we judge, to support the People's position.
When the drafters of the constitution of 1870 wrote in section 5 of article II that, 'the right of trial by jury, as heretofore enjoyed, shall remain inviolate,' they were using language...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Finley
...it should likewise be mandated in an 'implied consent' hearing. We do not believe that this is a sound contention. People v. Woerly, 50 Ill.2d 327, 278 N.E.2d 787 (1972) and People v. Manion, 3 Ill.App.3d 621, 278 N.E.2d 175 (1970), cited by defendant as authority for such argument, are dis......
-
Marzen v. Klousia, 66101
...it was not intended to prevent the legislature from extending the right to further areas of litigation. See People v. Woerly, 50 Ill.2d 327, 329, 278 N.E.2d 787, 788 (1972). [T]he primary purpose of the jury is to prevent the possibility of oppression by the Government; the jury interposes ......
-
People v. Harris
...right to a trial by jury. 725 ILCS 5/103-6 (West 2004); People v. Flessner, 48 Ill.2d 54, 268 N.E.2d 376 (1971); People v. Woerly, 50 Ill.2d 327, 278 N.E.2d 787 (1972). A defendant validly waives his right to a jury trial only if made (1) understandingly and (2) in open court. 725 ILCS 5/10......