White v. People of State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1876 |
| Citation | 81 Ill. 333,1876 WL 9987 |
| Parties | JOHN WHITE 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 Champaign county; the Hon. JAMES C. ALLEN, Judge, presiding.
Mr. L. GORDON, for plaintiff in error William Cozens.
Messrs. SOMMERS & WRIGHT, and Mr. J. W. LANGLEY, for plaintiff in error John White.
Mr. JAMES K. EDSALL, Attorney General, for the People. Mr. JUSTICE DICKEY delivered the opinion of the Court:
At a special term of the circuit court of the county of Champaign, begun January 4, 1875, the Hon. James C. Allen, circuit judge of the 21st circuit, presiding, the plaintiffs in error were tried and convicted of the murder of Wm. Harris. The indictment purports to have been found at the September term, 1874. The verdict was rendered on January 20, and sentence pronounced on the 22d of January, 1875, condemning each of the plaintiffs in error to be hanged on February 12, 1875. This writ brings to this court, for review, this judgment, and the proceedings of record on which it rests.
Champaign county is part of the 16th judicial circuit, of which the Hon. C. B. Smith was the circuit judge. On the 7th of November, 1874, being one of the days of the September term for that year, Judge Smith presiding, an order was entered appointing a special term, to begin on the 4th day of January, 1875.
Afterwards, on the 12th day of November, 1874, Judge Smith still presiding, an order was entered adjourning the court until the 24th day of November, 1874. This order recites that the Hon. Lyman Lacey, judge of the 17th judicial circuit, had, at the request of Judge Smith, consented to preside at the continuation of the term.
The next entry shown in the transcript is of proceedings had on the 1st day of December, 1874. The order states that, on that day, “being one of the days of the term of court aforesaid,” Judge Lyman Lacey presiding, it being after the discharge of the regular grand jury, “it being made to appear to the court that public justice required the impaneling of a grand jury, and the court being of the opinion that public justice required the impaneling of a special grand jury at this term, the court, therefore, orders that a special venire be issued,” etc., “for a grand jury of twenty-three good and lawful men, qualified according to law, and to be summoned,” etc.
The venire was issued, and the grand jury brought in on this venire was duly organized, and, on the 4th day of January, duly returned the indictment in this case.
It is insisted, because the record does not affirmatively show that the court was convened on the twenty-fourth day of November, in pursuance of the order of adjournment to that day, entered on the 12th of November, that it must be held that the September term had lapsed and ceased, and, as a consequence, the proceedings on the 1st day of December (and on the subsequent days purporting to be of the said September term) were coram non judice and void, and hence that this indictment was and is void. This position is not well taken. The orders of record of December 1, speaking of the day, states that was one of the regular days of said September term. In the absence of anything in the record to the contrary, by bill of exceptions or otherwise, the fair inference is that the court was duly convened on the 24th of November, and that the term was continued by regular adjournments, or that in the absence of the judge the proper adjournments were made by the sheriff, as provided by sec. 37, chap. 37, R. L. 1874. p. 331.
It is objected that it was irregular and erroneous to issue a venire for a grand jury as this was done, and it is suggested the regular grand jury, which had been discharged, ought to have been called together. The course here pursued is expressly authorized by sec. 19, chap. 78, R. S. 1874, p. 634. Where the transcript shows merely that the regular grand jury has been discharged, the court will presume that it was properly discharged, and in such case, where it turns out that there is some new matter which calls for a special grand jury, the case falls within the provisions of this statute. On the face of this record, this grand jury was properly called, and had full authority by law to find the indictment.
The sentence and judgment in this case, however, was erroneous, and must be reversed. Section 439 of the Criminal Code (R. S. 1874, 412) provides that the day set for the execution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cramer
... ... offense, and he must both "aid and abet." ... ( State v. Corcoran, 7 Idaho 221, 61 P. 1034; ... People v. Dole, 122 Cal. 486, 68 Am. St. 50, 55 P ... 581; 12 Cyc. 616; Hughes, Instructions, sec. 293; Wood v ... State, 28 Tex. App. 14, 11 S.W ... Such consenting, though ... involving moral turpitude, does not come up to the meaning of ... the words 'aid and abet.'" ( White v ... People, 81 Ill. 333; State v. Douglass, 44 Kan ... 618, 26 P. 476; Drury v. Terr., 9 Okla. 398, 60 P ... 101; Connaughty v. State, ... ...
-
Spies v. People (In re Anarchists)
...Cas. 96; Duffey's Case, Lewin, Cr. Cas. 194; Reg. v. Luck, 3 Fost. & F. 483; State v. Hildreth, 9 Ired. 440, 51 Amer. Dec. 369; White v. People, 81 Ill. 333;U. S. v. Jones, 3 Wash. C. C. 209. In order to hold the accused as accessories on the ground of conspiracy, the principal actor must b......
-
People v. Moman
...of such evidence." (People v. Duncan (1988), 124 Ill.2d 400, 413, 125 Ill.Dec. 265, 272, 530 N.E.2d 423, 430, citing White v. People (1876), 81 Ill. 333, 338; People v. Sweetin (1927), 325 Ill. 245, 252, 156 N.E. 354, 357; People v. Johnson (1958), 13 Ill.2d 619, 624, 150 N.E.2d 597, 600; P......
-
Dent v. State
...knowledge of said conviction to Dent than the judgment introduced upon the trial of this case? Whart. Cr. Law, §§ 237, 242, 244; White v. People, 81 Ill. 333. The court charged the jury as follows: "These records [that is, the judgment, sentence, and indictment of Isaacs] are admitted alone......