Village of Hoffman Estates v. Spychalski
| Decision Date | 14 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 61633,61633 |
| Citation | 337 N.E.2d 463,33 Ill.App.3d 83 |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF HOFFMAN ESTATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul F. SPYCHALSKI, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Richard N. Williams, Evenston, for plaintiff-appellant.
Paul F. Spychalski, pro se.
Before DOWNING, P.J., and STAMOS and LEIGHTON, JJ.
Village of Hoffman Estates, plaintiff, appeals from an order dismissing a traffic accident case because plaintiff was not ready for trial on the return date as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 504. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, par. 504.) The issues on appeal are whether a municipality has the right to prosecute for a violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code; and whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant plaintiff a continuance in a traffic accident case to permit plaintiff to subpoena necessary witnesses.
On November 10, 1974, a complaint was issued 'in the name and by the authority of the People of the State of Illinois' against Paul F. Spychalski for failure to yield the right of way in violation of Section 11--904 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11--904.) The complaint further stated that said defendant committed the offense contrary 'to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Illinois.' On January 3, 1975, the complaint was filed in the Third Municipal District of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by the Village of Hoffman Estates against Paul F. Spychalski, Case No. X3--117--615.
The cause came on for trial on January 3, 1975. Defendant pleaded not guilty and plaintiff asked for a continuance to subpoena the witnesses to the accident. The trial court stated that under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 504 defendant is entitled to a trial on the merits on the date set by the police officer. The village prosecutor's motion for a continuance was denied and when the prosecution failed to prceed, the trial court entered the order dismissing the cause for want of prosecution.
Plaintiff has taken all steps necessary to perfect its appeal. Defendant, on the other hand, has failed to appear or file a brief with this court. Under such circumstances, this court, in its discretion, may summarily reverse the judgment of the trial court Pro forma. (First Capitol Mtg. Corp. v. Talandis Const. Corp., 28 Ill.App.3d 684, 329 N.E.2d 412; People v. Farrell, 20 Ill.App.3d 786, 314 N.E.2d 538.) However, in the case at bar, the record raises the question of whether the Village of Hoffman Estates had the right to prosecute for a violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 95 1/2, pars. 16--101 Et seq.) Therefore, we will address ourselves to this issue only.
The complaint, given to defendant at the time of his arrest, was a printed form with certain blank spaces to be filled in and certain small boxes which could be checked by the arresting officer. The complaint gave the officer a good deal of leeway including an option, in the case of many traffic offenses, to bring the charge either under the traffic regulations of the Village of Hoffman Estates or those of the State of Illnois. It was an all-purpose form and provided for information concerning the cause of the accident and conditions that might increase the seriousness of the violation. It also served the dual purpose of a complaint and a summons, although the far greater part of it was made up of the complaint. The summons was confined by a small box, on the lower right side of the ticket. It was captioned 'Court Appearance' and, when filled out, informed the person arrested of the date and location of the traffic court where the case would be tried. See City of Chicago v. Berg, 48 Ill.App.2d 251, 199 N.E.2d 49.
The complaint against Spychalski was not made in the name of the Village of Hoffman Estates. The plaintiff was the State of Illinois and the charge was made 'In the name and by the authority of the People of the State of Illinois' and comcluded with the words 'and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Illinois.'
[2,3] Section 16--102 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 95 1/2, par. 16--102) provides in part as follows:
The State's Attorney of the county in which the violation occurs shall prosecute all violations except when the violation occurs within the corporate limits of a municipality, the municipal attorney may prosecute if written permission to do so is obtained from the State's Attorney.
It is clear from a reading of Section 16--102 that the prosecution for an Illinois Vehicle Code violation must be in the name of the People of the State of Illinois; and that the municipality may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wiatr
...similar circumstances in three companion cases decided since the amendment of section 16-102. In Village of Hoffman Estates v. Spychalski (1975), 33 Ill.App.3d 83, 337 N.E.2d 463, the village sought to appeal from an order which had dismissed a complaint for violation of the Illinois Vehicl......
-
Com. v. Mello
...372 Mass. 315, 317, 361 N.E.2d 1274 (1977). The city was not a party to the instant prosecution. Compare Hoffman v. Spychalski, 33 Ill.App.3d 83, 85-86, 337 N.E.2d 463 (1975); State v. Hamblin, 448 S.W.2d 603, 607 (Mo.1970). The interest of the city was not sufficiently direct to meet the §......
-
People v. Worthington
...bring a state traffic law prosecution in the name of The People of the State of Illinois. In Village of Hoffman Estates v. Spychalski (1st Dist., 1975), 33 Ill.App.3d 83, 85, 337 N.E.2d 463, 465, the First District examined section 16-102 and declared: "(i)t is clear from a reading of secti......
- People v. Jordan