Crabtree v. Hagenbaugh

23 Ill. 349
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 23 Ill. 349 (Crabtree v. Hagenbaugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crabtree v. Hagenbaugh, 23 Ill. 349 (Ill. 1860).

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

In this case, after the jury had retired to consider of their verdict, they sent for the judge, who repaired to their room, and there had intercourse with them on the subject of the instructions- which had been given them. This was manifestly done with no improper motive on the part of the judge, and it may be that it had no influence with them in the formation of their verdict. Indeed, the most the judge did, was to decline to explain the meaning of the written instructions which had been given to the jury. We choose to assume, that what was said and done by the judge, while in the jury room, did not influence the jury in their deliberations, for we think that, independent of its effect upon the jury, the judgment should be reversed, for the simple reason that such an interview did take place. If, in this case, no harm was actually done, and for that reason the verdict is allowed to stand, we open the door to the inquiry in all such cases, as to whether the party has been injured by the interview. Such an inquiry should not be tolerated. The policy of the law requires, that all the proceedings of the court should be open and notorious, and in the presence of the party, so that if he is not satisfied with it, he may take exceptions to it, in the mode pointed out by the law, and not be put to extraneous proof to show that an error has been committed in a secret proceeding, and, in fact, out of court.

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Childs
596 N.E.2d 108 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1992)
Katzer v. Katzer
378 N.E.2d 316 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1978)
People v. Baltimore
288 N.E.2d 659 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1972)
Williams v. Williams
130 N.E.2d 291 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1955)
State v. Joseph
95 N.E.2d 771 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1950)
Albert v. Albert
92 N.E.2d 491 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1950)
Graham v. State
1942 OK CR 5 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1942)
The People v. Brothers
180 N.E. 442 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1932)
Lorenzen v. Keenan
266 S.W. 839 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Smith v. Harris
252 S.W. 836 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
People v. Beck
137 N.E. 454 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1922)
State v. Brodt
185 N.W. 645 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1921)
City of Mound City v. Mason
104 N.E. 685 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1914)
Texas Midland R.R. Co. v. Byrd
115 S.W. 1163 (Texas Supreme Court, 1909)
Havenor v. State
104 N.W. 116 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
Commonwealth v. House
6 Pa. Super. 92 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)
Lester v. Hays
38 S.W. 52 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1896)
Chouteau v. Jupiter Iron Works
94 Mo. 388 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 Ill. 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crabtree-v-hagenbaugh-ill-1860.