Case ID: ill_253/html/0057-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dunn", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Robert E. Cantwell, Plaintiff in Error.
    
      Opinion filed December 21, 1911
    
    
      Rehearing denied Feb. 8, 1912.
    
    Assault and battery—information need not allege, in terms, that assault was unlawfully made. ■ An information charging the defendant with assault and battery is not fatally defective though it does not allege, in terms, that the assault was unlawfully made.
    Writ op Error to the Appellate Court for the First District;—heard in that court on writ of error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Stephen A. Foster, Judge, presiding.
    George W. Plummer, and James T. Brady, for plaintiff in error.
    W: H. Stead, Attorney General, John E. W. Way-man, State’s Attorney, and Joel C. Fitch, (Zach HoPheimER, of counsel,) for the People.
   Mr. Justice Dunn

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the municipal court of Chicago of assault and battery. The Appellate Court having affirmed the judgment he has brought the record here for review, and contends that the information is not sufficient, that a reference to the defendant’s right to testify entitled him to a new trial, and that the instructions were erroneous.

The objection made to the information is, that it does not allege that the assault was unlawfully made. The information is sufficient at common law and is equally good to charge a violation of the statute. 3 Chitty’s Crim. Law, 821; Bishop’s Directions and Forms, 99, sec. 201; Curtis v. People, Breese, 256; State v. Bray, 1 Mo. 180; State v. Hays, 41 Tex. 526.

The remark of the State’s attorney which is complained of does not appear to have been either intended or calculated to direct the attention of the jury to the defendant’s neglect to testify.

The objections to the instructions are too refined and tenuous to be of practical importance.

Judgment affirmed.