Court Opinion

ID: 9706781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:51:22.994618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:24.911493
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE JOHNSON specially concurring: I approve of the results reached and of the reasons stated in the above opinion, except one. I concur in the opinion’s holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in failing to hear defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and quash the venire for the reason that same were not timely filed. This case was assigned to the trial judge on November 15, 1971. After several continuances, the case was set for trial on May 10, 1972. On the latter date, defendant filed the above mentioned motions and asked for a hearing. The court denied the hearing and proceeded to trial indicating that a hearing would be conducted after trial. The motions to dismiss the indictment and quash the venire were made pursuant to section 114 — 1(a)(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, §§ 114 — 1(a)(4) and 114 — 3). These statutes in relevant part read as follows: “§ 114 — 1 Motion to Dismiss Charge. (a) Upon the written motion of the defendant made prior to trial before or after a plea has been entered the court may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint upon any of the following grounds: * * * (4) The indictment was returned by a Grand Jury which was improperly selected and which results in substantial injustice to the defendant; * * * (b) The court shall require any motion to dismiss to be filed within a reasonable time after the defendant has been arraigned. Any motion not filed within such time or an extension thereof shall not be considered by the court and the grounds therefor, except as to subsections (a)(6) and (a)(8) of this section, are waived. * * * § 114 — 3 Motion to Discharge Jury Panel. (a) Any objection to the manner in which a jury panel has been selected or drawn shall be raised by a motion to discharge the jury panel prior to the voir dire examination. For good cause shown the court may entertain the motion after the voir dire has begun but such motion shall not be heard after a jury has been sworn to hear the cause. (b) The motion shall be in writing supported by affidavit and shall state facts which show that the jury panel was improperly selected or drawn. (c) If the motion states facts which show that the jury panel has been improperly selected or drawn it shall be the duty of the court to conduct a hearing. The burden of proving that the jury panel was improperly selected or drawn shall be upon the movant.” (Emphasis added.) The statute clearly states that upon written motion made prior to trial the court may dismiss an indictment. It further states that any objection to the manner in which a jury panel has been selected or drawn shall be raised by motion to discharge the jury panel prior to the voir dire examination, and if the motion states facts which show that the jury panel has been improperly selected or drawn, it shall be the duty of the court to conduct a hearing. The court shall require any motion to dismiss to be filed within a reasonable time after defendant has been arraigned. Any motion not filed within such time or an extension thereof shall not be considered by the court. The State’s brief notes that motions “similar” to the defendant’s in the present case were rejected in People v. Connolly (1973), 55 Ill.2d 421, 303 N.E.2d 409, and also cites Swain v. Alabama (1965), 380 U.S. 202; People v. Powell (1973), 53 Ill.2d 465, 292 N.E.2d 409. In all of the cases cited by the parties these motions were heard as pre-trial motions before trial on the merits. There were no cases cited by the parties and our research has revealed none where such motions were held over and heard after trial on the merits. I would hold that to permit such a procedure would constitute reversible error. I hope that by this opinion, we are not saying that a trial judge may in his descretion postpone the hearing of a pre-trial motion until after a jury verdict.