People v. Woods
| Decision Date | 23 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 36679,36679 |
| Citation | 24 Ill.2d 154,180 N.E.2d 475 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert WOODS, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Euclid L. Taylor and Robert W. Heinze, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Gallagher, James R. Thompson, and Marvin E. Aspen, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Defendant was tried in the criminal court of Cook County on an indictment charging him with attempted abortion. From the judgment of conviction entered on the jury's verdict of guilty, defendant brings this writ of error.
Defendant first contends that the indictment was fatally defective. It alleged in part, that defendant 'on the twenty seventh day of September (1960) * * * unlawfully, feloniously and wilfully, in some way and manner which is to said Grand Jurors unknown used and employed some means and devices a further and more particular description of which is to said Grand Jurors unknown, upon one Eileen Witsman * * * with the intent * * * then and there to produce the abortion and miscarriage of said Eileen Witsman; and that by the use and employment of said means and devices * * * in said way and manner * * * upon said Eileen Witsman then and there unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully and knowingly attempted to procure the abortion and miscarriage of said Eileen Witsman; * * *.' The statute under which this indictment was drawn makes it a crime 'by means of any instrument, medicine, drug or order means whatever, * * * (to attempt) to procure or produce an abortion or miscarriage, * * *.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 38, par. 3.
Defendant argues that this indictment is insufficient to inform him of the nature of the crime charged because it fails to allege the manner in which an instrument was used in an attempt to procure an abortion. The purpose of an indictment is to furnish the accused a description of the charge against him to enable him to prepare his defense and to prevent a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. This indictment apprised defendant of the time, place, victim and nature of the offense. It further alleged, although without specificity, that some means and devices were employed in some way and manner in an attempt to procure an abortion. We fail to see, as defendant contends, that his preparation of a defense could depend on the indictment containing an exact description of the instrument and of its manner of use. We conclude that adequate information was provided for the preparation of defendant's defense and that the indictment was sufficient, anything in Cochran v. People, 175 Ill. 28, 51 N.E. 845, notwithstanding. This view is in accord with decisions in other jurisdictions. Thomas v. State, 156 Ala. 166, 47 So. 257; People v. T. Wah Hing, 15 Cal.App. 195, 114 P. 416; Wasy v. State, 234 Ind. 52, 123 N.E.2d 462, 46 A.L.R.2d 1389; State v. Hanson, 53 S.D. 205, 220 N.W. 518; State v. Gaul, 88 Wash. 295, 152 P. 1029.
Defendant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish an attempt to produce an abortion. Eileen Witsman and policewoman Catherine Casey, pursuant to an agreement made with defendant several days earlier, went to his apartment. Defendant showed them the kitchen where he was going to perform the operation. They saw a table with a sheet and cover; a large folding screen between the table and the living room door; a chair at one end of the table; a stove with a covered pan on the burner which was later found to contain instruments commonly used in performing an abortion; an open suitcase with various medicines and instruments in it; and a small table will medical instruments and books on it. After seeing this equipment, they returned to the living room and defendant gave Eileen two sedative pills. She pretended to swallow them as defendant counted the $250 fee which had previously been agreed upon. Defendant told policewoman Casey to remain in the living room. He then took Eileen to the kitchen, sat her down on the chair beside the table, and told her he would have to examine her. Since she appeared nervous, he explained the operation to her. Policewoman Casey entered the room and asked if he had started. Defendant said that he was calming Eileen because she was nervous and asked the policewoman to return to the living room. Eileen had removed her shoes and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Otto
...v. Spencer, 66 Misc.2d 658, 322 N.Y.S.2d 266 (1971); Logan v. State, 263 A.2d 266 (Me.1970); Gervin v. State, supra; People v. Woods, 24 Ill.2d 154, 180 N.E.2d 475 (1962) cert. den. 371 U.S. 819, 83 S.Ct. 34, 9 L.Ed.2d 59 (1962); State v. Bereman, 177 Kan. 141, 276 P.2d 364 (1954); People v......
- People v. Turner
-
People v. Witherspoon, 4-06-0226.
...Rather, Illinois courts have repeatedly held that a single offense of attempt can encompass multiple acts. People v. Woods, 24 Ill.2d 154, 158, 180 N.E.2d 475, 478 (1962) ("an attempt does exist where a person, with intent to commit a specific offense, performs acts which constitute substan......
-
People v. Bell
...is well established "[m]ere preparation to commit a crime * * * does not constitute an attempt to commit it." People v. Woods , 24 Ill. 2d 154, 158, 180 N.E.2d 475, 478 (1962). "[O]ne of the most troublesome problems in attempts is to determine when preparation to commit an offense ceases a......