Thompson v. People of State
| Decision Date | 25 September 1880 |
| Citation | 1880 WL 10088,96 Ill. 158 |
| Parties | JAMES THOMPSON et al.v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. OWEN T. REEVES, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. TIPTON & RYAN, for the plaintiffs in error:
The indictment charges no offence under the statute, and therefore the conviction can not be sustained.
It merely charges that defendants did feloniously attempt feloniously to take, steal, etc. This is clearly insufficient. Something more than an attempt to commit a crime or misdemeanor is necessary to constitute an offence under the statute. Nothing short of an attempt to commit an offence, coupled with an overt, physical act done towards its consummation, is denounced by this statute.
The language employed excludes the presumption that the legislature intended that the word “attempt” should signify both the act and the intention with which the act is done, for it is required not only that there shall be an attempt to commit an offence, but also some act shall be done towards the commission of the offence,--therefore, the word “attempt” signifies intention only.
The meaning of the section may be accurately expressed by the insertion of the word “intends” for the word “attempt,” thus: “Whoever intends to commit an offence prohibited by law, and does some act towards it but fails,” etc.
If this construction is correct, it necessarily follows that the indictment is fatally defective, for it wholly fails to charge any act done by the defendants, or either of them, towards the commission of the offence.
No more can be claimed for the indictment than that in charging the “attempt” it, in legal effect, charges defendants with an evil intent, but act and evil intent must combine to constitute crime. No amount of intention alone is sufficient; neither is any amount of act, alone. Bishop C. L. secs. 206 and 207.
Construing this section in Cox v. The People, 82 Ill. 193, this court said: “Whoever attempts to commit any offence prohibited by law and does any act towards it,” must be construed, in cases like the present, to mean a physical act, as contra-distinguished from a verbal declaration,--that is, it must be a step taken towards the actual commission of the offence, and not a mere effort by persuasion to produce the conviction of mind essential to the commission of the offence. See, also, Commonwealth v. Clark, 6 Gratt. 675; Randolph v. Cone, 6 Serg. & R. 398; Regan v. Meredith, 8 Car. & Payne, 589; State v. Wilson, 30 Conn. 500; Lovett v. State, 19 Tex. 174; Bishop's Crim. Prac. sec. 566; 3 Cox C. C. 570; Temp. & M. 192; Train & Hurd's Prac. 52; Wharton's Prac. (2d ed.), 719.
What is not necessary to be charged in an indictment need not be proved. Cowen et al. v. The People, 14 Ill. 348; The People v. Wilbur, 4 Parker's Cr. Rep. 20; Archbold's Cr. Pl. 38-48; Chitty's Cr. L. 171, 173, 281, 289.
Mr. JAMES K. EDSALL, Attorney General, for the People:
While the indictment may have been subject to the objection urged against it at common law, it is sufficient under the statute. 2 Wharton's Crim. Law, sec. 2704.
The offence was not only stated in the language of the statute, but “so plainly that the nature of the offence may be easily understood by the jury.” Rev. Stat. p. 412, sec. 408; Criminal Code, sec. 408.
In the cases cited by counsel for plaintiffs in error, no such statute appears to have been involved.
The charge that the prisoners “feloniously attempted” to commit the larceny, necessarily carries with it the charge that they did some act to carry out such design.
An attempt to commit a crime means something more than an intention to do so.
The indictment could not be sustained by proof without showing some act done on the part of the prisoners toward effecting the larceny.
Plaintiffs in error were indicted in the McLean circuit court for an attempt to commit larceny of a number of treasury warrants and some small silver coins. The section under which the indictment was found is the 273d of the Criminal Code, and reads: “Whoever attempts to commit any offence prohibited by law, and does any act towards it, but fails, or is intercepted or prevented in its execution, where no express provision is made by law for the punishment of such attempt, shall be punished,” etc. The indictment, after describing the property, alleged the attempt was made to steal “the goods and chattels of Aaron Mooney, then and there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Logan v. State
...in the description of the nature, substance or manner of the offense, can not be supplied by intendment or implication.' In Thompson v. People, 96 Ill. 158, 161, the Court siad that 'if the averment of a mere attempt was all that is required, the accused could never know what acts would be ......
-
State v. Topham
...whether or not the law has been violated, and so that the accused may know to what he must make answer." To the same effect is Thompson v. People, 96 Ill. 158, are also many other cases. What are here the essentials of the charged offense? The state urges to cause, induce, and encourage an ......
-
State v. Rodriquez
...v. State, 106 Ga. 368, 32 S.E. 335; Kimball v. State, 112 Ga. 541, 37 S.E. 886; Crosby v. People, 137 Ill. 325, 27 N.E. 49; Thompson v. People, 96 Ill. 158; Flint Com., 81 Ky. 186, 23 S.W. 346; State v. Evans, 39 La. Ann. 912, 3 So. 63; Roberts v. People, 19 Mich. 401; State v. Stewart, 29 ......
-
Graham v. People
...we mean that he intended to do specifically it, and proceeded a certain way in the doing.’ See, also, Cox v. People, 82 Ill. 191;Thompson v. People, 96 Ill. 158. It will be observed that a failure to consummate the crime is as much an element of an attempt to commit it as the intent and the......