網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

or not?' No; but they try to exclude every piece of testimony bearing upon the guilt of this defendant.” This statement was improper and the objection to it should have been sustained. It is the province of the court to pass upon the admissibility of evidence, and it is no concern of the jury whether an objection has been made to the admission of the evidence and whether such objection has been overruled or sustained. It is the duty of the jury, under the instructions of the court, to consider only such evidence as has been admitted, and they have no concern with the rulings of the court on the admission of evidence during the progress of the trial. In McDonald v. People, 126 Ill. 150, counsel stated to the jury, after a statement had been excepted to, “The court thinks I am right or he would tell me to vary my line of argument.” In holding that this was error we said: “It is a proposition too plain to admit of argument, that the jury had nothing to do with the force or effect or the office of an exception that might be taken by counsel during the trial.”

During the argument counsel for the State also referred to the fact that a change of venue had been taken from Cook county to Grundy county and that plaintiff in error had not the courage to face the many persons he had defrauded in Cook county. Generally it is error for the prosecution to refer to the fact that a defendant has secured a change of venue from the county in which the crime is alleged to have been committed. The court determines, after a showing has been made, whether or not a change of venue should be granted, and it must be presumed when a change is granted that such action was necessary in order to secure for the defendant a fair trial. In this instance, however, plaintiff in error has no grounds for complaint. His counsel in their arguments referred to the fact that a change of venue had been taken, and the remarks of counsel for the State constitute legitimate reply to that argument. Counsel having opened this subject for discussion themselves cannot be heard to complain that the State saw fit to answer their argument.

280 - 4

Other statements made by counsel for the State are complained of, but we perceive nothing further in the arguments that was not warranted by the evidence.

Before the change of venue was secured a general motion to quash the indictment was overruled by the criminal court of Cook county and plaintiff in error entered a plea of not guilty. After the cause had been transferred to the circuit court of Grundy county, and without withdrawing the plea of not guilty, plaintiff in error interposed a motion to quash the indictment on the specific ground of irregularity in organizing the grand jury which returned the indictment. This motion was properly overruled. It is a well settled rule that a motion to quash an indictment after plea cannot be considered unless, upon leave obtained, the plea is first withdrawn. McKevitt v. People, 208 Ill. 460; People v. Strauch, 247 id. 220; People v. Jones, 263 id. 564.

While the cause was still pending in the criminal court of Cook county a motion to require the State to furnish a bill of particulars was allowed and a bill of particulars was furnished. After the cause was removed to the circuit court of Grundy county plaintiff in error entered a motion to require the State to furnish a more specific bill of particulars. The action of the court in denying this motion is assigned for error. Whether or not the State shall be required to furnish a bill of particulars in a particular case, and the character of such a bill, rests in the sound legal discretion of the trial court. (DuBois v. People, 200 Ill. 157; People v. O'Farrell, 247 id. 44; People v. Gray, 251 id. 431.) It is only in cases where it is clear that there has been an abuse of this discretion that the denial of such a motion is held to be error. It does not appear that plaintiff in error was surprised or in any way injured on the trial by the failure to furnish a more specific bill of particulars. The motion set out in great detail the informa

tion desired, and was, in effect, a demand that the State disclose the evidence it proposed to produce. We are of the opinion there was no abuse of the discretion of the court in denying this motion.

The court did not err in refusing to require the State to elect

upon which count or counts it would seek conviction. It is contended by plaintiff in error that various offenses are charged in the different counts of the indictment and that these offenses are distinct and separate from each other and do not arise out of the same transaction, and that the State should have been put to an election. Plaintiff in error and his co-defendants were charged with conspiracy. While in the several counts separate and distinct objects of the conspiracy are alleged one general conspiracy is charged, and the various acts which it is alleged in the several counts plaintiff in error and his co-defendants conspired to commit are all parts of the same general conspiracy. The right to require the State's attorney to elect upon which count of an indictment he will rely for conviction is confined to cases where the offenses charged in the different counts of the indictment are distinct from each other and do not arise out of or form parts of the same transactions. Goodhue v. People, 94 Ill. 37; Andrews v. People, 117 id. 195; Herman v. People, 131 id. 594; People v. Warfield, 261 id. 293.

During the selection of the jury on at least two occasions the State tendered plaintiff in error four jurors, and upon examination of the panel by plaintiff in error a juror in each instance was excused for cause, and the court thereupon required plaintiff in error to fill the panel. It is contended that the State was bound to tender the defense a panel of four competent and qualified jurors, and if, after tender, it was disclosed that any member of the panel was disqualified for cause, the examination then shifted to the State to fill the panel. The court did not err in this regard. Section 21 of the act concerning jurors provides that the

jury shall be passed upon and accepted in panels of four by the parties, and section 23 provides that the act applies to proceedings in both criminal and civil cases. All that is incumbent upon the State is to secure a panel of four that is acceptable to it and it may then tender them to the defense. It may be that upon the examination on the part of the State it is disclosed that one of the jurors in the panel is disqualified for cause, but the State has the right, if it sees fit, to waive its privilege to challenge for cause and accept the juror.

During the cross-examination of plaintiff in error the assistant State's attorney made numerous remarks to the witness which are complained of. These remarks were improper and of a nature calculated to discredit plaintiff in error, and had they been unprovoked their effect upon the jury would be a matter of grave consideration. Many of them were objected to and the objections sustained, and in other instances the objections were not ruled upon. The plaintiff in error was largely responsible for many, if not all, of the remarks made by the cross-examiner. He volunteered statements, criticisms and suggestions that were calculated to irritate counsel. While counsel should have ignored these voluntary statements of the witness and should have refrained from participating in conduct which, to say the least, was unseemly, we are not disposed to hold, under the circumstances, that any error was committed in this regard.

Numerous objections were made to the introduction of testimony which it is claimed was improperly admitted. James B. McDougal, governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and formerly examiner for the Chicago clearing house, was called as a witness for the State, and during his testimony concerning his examination of the La Salle Street National Bank the following testimony was admitted :

Q. “Besides the question of Mr. Munday's inexperience in city banking, was there anything else entered into the knowledge which you acquired at that time and that you acquired with reference to this examination? (Objected to.)

A. "The facts were, at the time, as indicated by my report, showing a number of transactions which were of a questionable character and such as would warrant me in questioning the integrity of the management. All these things entered into that. (Motion to exclude answer denied.)

Q. “And what individuals were within the range of this answer?

A. "The management of that bank,—the La Salle Street National,—was largely in the hands of one man. I think my remarks would apply to him. That was vice-president Mr. Munday.”

This was improper and it was error to admit it. The court some days later during the trial excluded it, and the plaintiff in error contends that this did not cure the error. Inasmuch as the judgment must be reversed on other grounds it is unnecessary to determine whether the error was cured by the exclusion of this testimony later.

William C. Niblack, receiver of the LaSalle Street Trust and Savings Bank, testified to his inability to collect certain securities which were among the assets of that bank and as to the value of these securities when he took charge of the affairs of the bank as receiver. Other witnesses also testified as to the value of certain securities among the assets of the various banks involved and named in the indictment after the failure of these institutions. The principal testimony given by these witnesses consists of statements of their inability to collect these securities after the failure of the banks. It is the contention of plaintiff in error that these witnesses disclosed that they had no knowledge of the solvency of the makers of the securities in question, and especially at the time the securities were taken by these various banks. Evidence of a neglect or refusal of the maker

« 上一頁繼續 »