Fitzpatrick v. People

98 Ill. 259, 1881 Ill. LEXIS 249
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided March 21, 1881·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sheldon

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an indictment for malicious mischief, whereon the defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment in the penitentiary.

He assigns for error that the record fails to show that he was arraigned on the indictment. The record, after reciting the coming of the defendant in custody of the sheriff, and the disposition of a motion made by his attorney to quash the indictment, proceeds:. “And now the defendant being called upon to plead thereto, says that he is not guilty,” etc.

Our statute (Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 410, sec. 3,) provides: “Upon the arraignment of a prisoner it shall be sufficient, without complying with any other form, to declare orally that he is not guilty, and the mention of the arraignment and such plea shall constitute the issue between the people of the' State and the prisoner.”

Blackstone says: “To arraign is nothing else but to call the prisoner to the bar of the court to answer the matter charged upon him in the indictment.” 4 Black. Com. 322. Though he remarks further, that, when brought to the bar, the prisoner is to be called upon by name to hold up his-hand; that then the indictment is to be read to him distinctly in the English tongue, that he may fully understand his charge; after which it is to be demanded of him whether he be guilty of the crime whereof he stands indicted, or not guilty. The ancient formality attending the arraignment of a prisoner is disused in our practice. The statutory requirement of furnishing, the prisoner with a copy of the indictment is a better means of information to him of the charge than the reading of the indictment to him.

As the record does not use the technical term “arraigned,” it may be said that the record should show that what did take place amounted to an arraignment. We think that it does so show. The mention of the prisoner’s presence in court and that he was called upon to plead to the indictment, shows sufficiently an arraignment under our practice.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Fitzpatrick v. People, 98 Ill. 259, 1881 Ill. LEXIS 249 (Ill. 1881).

98 Ill. 259 (Fitzpatrick v. People) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The PEOPLE v. Johnson
215 N.E.2d 204 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1966)
Champion v. People
236 P.2d 127 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1951)
The People v. Arnold
72 N.E.2d 188 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1947)
The People v. Terry
9 N.E.2d 322 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1937)
The People v. Evenow
189 N.E. 363 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1934)
People v. Kennedy
135 N.E. 762 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1922)
State v. O'Kelley
167 S.W. 980 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
State v. O'Kelley
157 S.W. 1055 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Harmon v. State
62 So. 438 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1913)
People v. Weeks
130 N.W. 697 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Arbuckle v. State
80 Miss. 15 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1902)
Kelly v. People
24 N.E. 56 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)
Minich v. People
8 Colo. 440 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1885)
Spicer v. People
11 Ill. App. 294 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1882)