Phillips v. People of State
| Citation | 55 Ill. 429,1870 WL 6446 |
| Parties | JOHN PHILLIPSv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1870 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Rock Island county; the Hon. GEORGE W. PLEASANTS, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Messrs. BLANCHARD & SILVER, for the plaintiff in error. T
Mr. WASHINGTON BUSHNELL, Attorney General, for the People.
The plaintiff in error was indicted, on the eleventh day of January, 1869, in the circuit court of Rock Island county, for an assault upon one Jasper N. Hampton, with a loaded revolver, on the thirtieth day of October, 1868, within said county. He filed a plea in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, to which a demurrer was interposed, sustained by the court, and the plea of not guilty entered. A trial was had, and verdict of “guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to inflict a bodily injury, when no great provocation appeared,” was returned, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $250, upon which the case was brought to this court by writ of error. No point is made upon the form of the verdict. The bill of exceptions shows, that when the case was called for trial, plaintiff in error asked leave to withdraw his plea of not guilty, and file a special plea in bar of the further prosecution of the cause. The plea is set out in the bill of exceptions. It avers, that theretofore, at a session of the district court of the State of Iowa, held in Muscatine county, of that State, on the sixth day of June, 1869, said John Phillips was lawfully convicted of said offense, charged in said indictment; that the said district court of Iowa had exclusive jurisdiction of said offense, the same having been committed upon the waters of the Mississippi river, said river being navigable, and forming a common boundary between the States of Illinois and Iowa, “all of which will appear from an inspection of the records of said conviction, herewith filed, and made a part hereof,” concluding with a verification and prayer for judgment.
This application was refused by the court, and exception taken. On the trial, the counsel for the accused offered the records referred to in the plea, in evidence to the jury, which were excluded by the court, and exception taken. These two exceptions form the only basis of error relied upon in argument, and comprise the only questions which will be considered here.
The application for leave to withdraw the plea of not guilty, was one of a most dangerous character to the accused; because, if allowed, and he had failed in his special plea, the jury would have been compelled to find him guilty of the higher offense charged in the indictment, viz: assault with intent to commit murder. If the special plea tendered had been a proper one, it would have been in the nature of a plea puis darrein continuance in civil cases, and the legal effect of it might have been, if the defense arose after the plea of not guilty was entered, a waiver of the plea of not guilty; and in such a case as this, where the offense charged in the indictment is of a grave character, punishable with imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term that might be fixed at fourteen years, but one that might, under the plea of not guilty, be reduced to a mere misdemeanor, punishable with a fine, as it actually was, the court would not be so insensible to the rights and interest of the accused as to permit his counsel to place him in the position where he must sustain a particular defense, or be exposed to a certain conviction of the specific one charged in the indictment, unless such particular defense appeared to be clearly within the law. It will be manifest from these suggestions, that the application was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and nothing short of a clear abuse of it could be assigned for error. Was there such abuse in this case?
This leads us to a consideration of the so-called plea which was tendered--is contained in full in the bill of exceptions,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strobhar v. State
...limits so as to give its courts jurisdiction to try an offense against the sovereignty of the state of Florida alone. Phillips v. People, 55 Ill. 429. Even the plea is to be understood as meaning that the offense was committed both in Georgia and Florida, and was a transgression against the......
-
State v. Lee
... ... Allaire, 14 Ala. 400; Vason v. City of Augusta, ... 38 Ga. 542; Rech v. State, 53 Ga. 73; Severin v ... People, 37 Ill. 414; Phillips v. People, 55 ... Ill. 429; Ambrose v. State, 6 Ind. 351; State v ... Moore, 6 Ind. 436; State v. Foster, 33 Iowa ... ...
-
State v. Lee
...Mayor v. Allaire, 14 Ala. 400; Vason v. City of Augusta, 38 Ga. 542; Rech v. State, 53 Ga. 73; Severin v. People, 37 Ill. 414; Phillips v. People, 55 Ill. 429; Ambrose v. State, 6 Ind. 351; State v. Moore, 6 Ind. 436; State v. Foster, 33 Iowa, 525; State v. Inness, 53 Me. 536; Shafer v. Mum......
-
People v. Corbishly
...Scholfield. Durham v. People, 4 Scam. 172,39 Am. Dec. 407; McQuoid v. People, 3 Gilm, 76; Freeland v. People, 16 Ill. 380;Phillips v. People, 55 Ill. 429;Bedee v. People, 73 Ill. 320. [2][3][4] It is a general rule, according to the English and American authorities, that where the defendant......