People v. Barney

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Barney

205 Ill. App. 118

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 19, 1917

DocketGen. No. 6,323

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 118 (People v. Barney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Barney, 205 Ill. App. 118 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Intoxicating liquors, § 151*—when evidence insufficient to sustain conviction for illegally selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory. In a prosecution for illegally selling intoxicating liquor1 in anti-saloon territory and maintaining a nuisance, where a conviction was had upon two of eleven counts, and it appeared that of the four witnesses upon whose testimony the People relied for a conviction one did not sufficiently connect the plaintiff with the sale testified to, another was impeached and the remaining two must have been mistaken in their testimony, held that the verdict was not based upon sufficiently reliable evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case. 2. Chiminal law, § 207*—when abridgment of right of cross-examination prejudicial error. It is prejudicial error to unduly abridge the right of cross-examination to which a defendant in a criminal case is entitled.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Intoxicating liquors, § 151*—when evidence insufficient to sustain conviction for illegally selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory. In a prosecution for illegally selling intoxicating liquor1 in anti-saloon territory and maintaining a nuisance, where a conviction was had upon two of eleven counts, and it appeared that of the four witnesses upon whose testimony the People relied for a conviction one did not sufficiently connect the plaintiff with the sale testified to, another was impeached and the remaining two must have been mistaken in their testimony, held that the verdict was not based upon sufficiently reliable evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case. 2. Chiminal law, § 207*—when abridgment of right of cross-examination prejudicial error. It is prejudicial error to unduly abridge the right of cross-examination to which a defendant in a criminal case is entitled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barney-illappct-1917.