Weyrich v. People of State
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | SCHOLFIELD |
| Citation | 1878 WL 9970,89 Ill. 90 |
| Parties | ANNA E. WEYRICHv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1878 |
89 Ill. 90
1878 WL 9970 (Ill.)
ANNA E. WEYRICH
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
June Term, 1878.
[89 Ill. 91]
[89 Ill. 92]
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Logan county; the Hon. LYMAN LACEY, Judge, presiding.Messrs. ROBERTS & GREEN, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. JAMES K. EDSALL, Attorney General, Mr. W. L. PRETTYMAN, State's Attorney, and Mr. JNO. B. COHRS, for the People.
Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:
At the September term, 1877, of the Tazewell circuit court, the plaintiff in error was indicted for the murder of her husband, Peter Weyrich, by poisoning, and on the 19th of October,
[89 Ill. 93]
being one of the days of the same term of court, she presented to the court her petition, verified by her own affidavit and those of two other citizens of Tazewell county, praying for a change of venue in the cause, on account of the prejudice of the inhabitants of Tazewell county against her. It was also alleged in the petition, that the same prejudice was entertained against her by the inhabitants of Woodford county, and it was, therefore, also prayed that the cause be sent to some other than that county for trial. The court ordered that the venue in the cause be changed to Logan county. At the January term, 1878, of the Logan circuit court, the plaintiff in error filed her plea denying the jurisdiction of that court to try the cause, to which the court sustained a demurrer. She then moved the court, supported by affidavit, that she be discharged, for want of jurisdiction in that court to proceed with the trial of the cause--but this motion was overruled. The court thereupon proceeded with the trial of the cause, and the jury, by their verdict, found the plaintiff in error guilty as charged in the indictment, and that she be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for the term of fourteen years. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were made, which the court overruled, and then gave judgment upon the verdict.Of the numerous objections urged to the rulings below, as grounds of reversal, we deem it necessary to notice but three, and these will be passed upon in the order in which they arise upon the record.
First, did the circuit court of Logan county have jurisdiction to try the cause?
It is argued, on behalf of plaintiff in error, that the venue should have been changed either to Peoria, Marshall, Stark or Putnam counties, which are in the same judicial circuit with Tazewell, and that changing it to Logan county, which is in a different judicial circuit, was in violation of § 9, Art. 2 of the constitution, which provides, that, “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to * * * a speedy
[89 Ill. 94]
public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.”The objection is, in our opinion, based upon a misapprehension of the meaning of the word “district,” as here used.
The plain object of this clause of the constitution is to secure to the defendant the common law right of trial by a jury of the visne or neighborhood where the offense is alleged to have been committed, and to protect him against prosecution elsewhere. The grand jury indicting, and the traverse jury trying, must be of the visne; and the court having jurisdiction is that which is, by law, invested with original authority to try such offenses. A party is no more subject to be indicted and tried for the alleged commission of an offense, in a different county in the same circuit, than in a county in a different circuit. The creation of judicial circuits has not the slightest reference to the enforcement of this clause of the constitution, but is solely for convenience in providing the requisite judicial force to administer the law throughout the State. The word “district” is convertible with that of “county,” and is descriptive of the territory which, in legal contemplation, comprises the visne, over which the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of prosecution for the commission of crimes and misdemeanors extends; and, although there may be many counties or districts in the same circuit, the court in each is entirely separate and disconnected from that in all the others, and its jurisdiction, within the meaning of the clause under consideration, is limited by its territorial boundaries.
The right secured by this clause is one that the defendant may waive, and the plaintiff in error here, when she petitioned for a change of venue, did waive it. Perteet v. The People, 70 Ill. 171, Rafferty v. The People, 72 Id. 37, and Bedee v. The People, 73 Id. 321, are cases where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morris, Nos. 33093
...133, 96 N.E.2d 449; People v. Utterback, 385 Ill. 239, 52 N.E.2d 775; People v. Maniatis, 297 Ill. 72, 130 N.E. 323; Weyrich v. People, 89 Ill. 90. No time limit is stated in the constitution, but by statute it is provided that any person committed for a criminal or a supposed criminal offe......
-
State v. Kuhnhausen
...and oppressive delays. People v. Utterback, 385 Ill. 239, 52 N.E.2d 775; People v. Maniatis, 297 Ill. 72, 130 N.E. 323; Weyrich v. People, 89 Ill. 90. * * We hold that the first question for determination is whether the constitutional right to a speedy trial was accorded to the defendant. T......
-
State v. Kusel, 1111
...right to be tried in the county where the offense is alleged to have been committed. (Kent v. State, 64 Ark. 247; Weyrich v. People, 89 Ill. 90; Perteet v. People, 70 Ill. 171; State v. Knapp, 40 Kan. 148; 19 P. 728; State v. Potter, 16 Kan. 80; Parker v. Com. 12 Bush, 191; Kennison v. Stat......
-
People v. Adams, Nos. 75111
...179 N.E. 821. Under prior law, the jurisdiction of a trial court was "limited by its territorial boundaries." (Weyrich v. People (1878), 89 Ill. 90, 94.) A court without venue therefore lacked jurisdiction. The identification of venue with jurisdiction explains why earlier decisions finding......
-
People v. Morris, Nos. 33093
...133, 96 N.E.2d 449; People v. Utterback, 385 Ill. 239, 52 N.E.2d 775; People v. Maniatis, 297 Ill. 72, 130 N.E. 323; Weyrich v. People, 89 Ill. 90. No time limit is stated in the constitution, but by statute it is provided that any person committed for a criminal or a supposed criminal offe......
-
State v. Kuhnhausen
...and oppressive delays. People v. Utterback, 385 Ill. 239, 52 N.E.2d 775; People v. Maniatis, 297 Ill. 72, 130 N.E. 323; Weyrich v. People, 89 Ill. 90. * * We hold that the first question for determination is whether the constitutional right to a speedy trial was accorded to the defendant. T......
-
State v. Kusel, 1111
...right to be tried in the county where the offense is alleged to have been committed. (Kent v. State, 64 Ark. 247; Weyrich v. People, 89 Ill. 90; Perteet v. People, 70 Ill. 171; State v. Knapp, 40 Kan. 148; 19 P. 728; State v. Potter, 16 Kan. 80; Parker v. Com. 12 Bush, 191; Kennison v. Stat......
-
People v. Adams, Nos. 75111
...821. Under prior law, the jurisdiction of a trial court was "limited by its territorial boundaries." (Weyrich v. People (1878), 89 Ill. 90, 94.) A court without venue therefore lacked jurisdiction. The identification of venue with jurisdiction explains why earlier decisions findin......