People v. Martin

Appellate Court of Illinois

People v. Martin

192 Ill. App. 485

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 28, 1915

DocketGen. No. 20,605

StatusPublished

This text of 192 Ill. App. 485 (People v. Martin) 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. Martin, 192 Ill. App. 485 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Vagrancy, § 1*—when information sufficient after verdict. An information charging vagrancy substantially in the language of the statute, held sufficient after verdict, no objection having been interposed below, nor demand for bill of particulars filed. 2. Criminal law, § 416*—when objections to evidence must be made below. Questions relating to the competency of evidence cannot be raised for the first time in a court of review. 3. Vagrancy, § 1*—when evidence sustains conviction. In a prosecution for vagrancy, where the State shows that defendant had no employment and no visible means of support, the facts being peculiarly within his knowledge, in the absence of any credible proof by him of such fact the jury are warranted in finding that he had no lawful means of support.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Vagrancy, § 1*—when information sufficient after verdict. An information charging vagrancy substantially in the language of the statute, held sufficient after verdict, no objection having been interposed below, nor demand for bill of particulars filed. 2. Criminal law, § 416*—when objections to evidence must be made below. Questions relating to the competency of evidence cannot be raised for the first time in a court of review. 3. Vagrancy, § 1*—when evidence sustains conviction. In a prosecution for vagrancy, where the State shows that defendant had no employment and no visible means of support, the facts being peculiarly within his knowledge, in the absence of any credible proof by him of such fact the jury are warranted in finding that he had no lawful means of support.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 Ill. App. 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martin-illappct-1915.