Court Opinion

ID: 9884982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:27:01.804521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:43.130357
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaefer, dissenting: In my opinion the constitutional safeguards against double jeopardy have not been violated in this case. It is true that jeopardy had attached upon the first trial. But there is more to the case than that, for the defendant was largely responsible for the unfortunate procedural snarl that ultimately resulted in the mistrial. The defendant originally pleaded guilty, but later requested and was granted leave to withdraw his plea and file a motion to quash the indictment. His motion to quash was heard and overruled. Thereafter he waived a trial by jury and the trial proceeded before the court. At the conclusion of the State’s case the defendant moved for a finding of not guilty. Everyone, including the defendant, appears to have proceeded to this point upon the assumption that a plea of not guilty was on file. When the defendant’s motion for a finding of not guilty was overruled, he moved at once to correct the record and for a new trial. On the following day he requested and was granted permission to withdraw his motion for a new trial. Thereafter a mistrial was finally allowed and the case was transferred to another judge who overruled the defendant’s claim of double jeopardy and tried the case. Whether the defendant’s attorney knew of our decision in People v. Hill, 17 Ill.2d 112, when he called the court’s attention to the absence of a formal plea can not be determined from the record. It is certain, however, that neither the assistant State’s attorneys nor the judge were aware of it. When the prosecution learned of it they sought to vacate the order granting the mistrial, but the defendant’s attorney objected. Under our decision in People v. Hill, the original trial could have proceeded to judgment without a formal plea. That is what would have happened if the defendant had not made his motions. Those motions seem to have been calculated to suggest to the trial judge that the court was without jurisdiction to proceed, which was true under the technical view that prevailed until it was laid to rest in People v. Hill. The constitutional right not to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense should be zealously protected. The phrase “double jeopardy” is not, however, a magic incantation that automatically discharges a defendant without regard to the circumstances under which he came to be placed in jeopardy a second time. In the case before us the prosecution and the court were led by the defendant’s attorney into a course of conduct that would not otherwise have occurred. There was double jeopardy, but it was self-induced. That a discharge of the defendant does not automatically follow in a situation like this one is illustrated by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199. There the defendant first pleaded guilty, then without withdrawing his plea he demurred to the indictment. The demurrer was overruled, a jury was impanelled and sworn and the witnesses were sworn. Thereafter upon motion of the district attorney which pointed out that the defendant had not pleaded after his demurrer was overruled, the court dismissed the jury. The defendant was at once arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The same jury was again impanelled and sworn, and the trial proceeded. To the defendant’s claim of double jeopardy, the Supreme Court responded, “* * * we think the contention that the accused was twice put in jeopardy is wholly without merit. Under the circumstances there was in the best possible view for the accused a mere irregularity of procedure which deprived him of no right. Indeed, when it is born in mind that the situation upon which the court acted resulted from entertaining a demurrer to the indictment after a plea of not guilty had been entered and not withdrawn, it is apparent that the confusion was brought about by an over-cautious purpose on the part of the court to protect the rights of the accused. Whether or not. under the circumstances it was a necessary formality to dismiss the jury in order to enable the accused to be again arraigned • and plead, the action taken was clearly within the bounds of sound judicial discretion. United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580; Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71, 85-86. See United States v. Riley, 5 Blatchf. 204, in which the facts were in substance identical with those here presented.” A contrary view was expressed in State v. Kinghorn, (1909) 56 Wash. 131, 105 P. 234, but that decision was overruled in State v. Brunn (1945) 22 Wash. 2d 120, 154 P.2d 826. In my opinion the trial court properly overruled the defendant’s claim of double jeopardy, and this court should so hold, and proceed to a consideration of the other issues in the case. Hershey, and Solfisburg, JJ., join in this dissent.