From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thomas

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District
Jan 14, 1975
24 Ill. App. 3d 907 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)

Summary

ruling that where a continuance based on unavailability of essential witnesses is denied and the State fails to present evidence sufficient to convict, a judgment of acquittal may be entered by the court on its own motion

Summary of this case from People v. Ortiz

Opinion

No. 74-238 Reversed and remanded.

January 14, 1975.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Tazewell County; the Hon. WILLIAM J. REARDON, Judge, presiding.

C. Brent Bode, State's Attorney, of Pekin, for the People.

Patrick Tuite, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee.


A four-count information was filed charging defendant, Charles Thomas, with obscenity in violation of section 11-20(a)(3) of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 11-20(a)(3)). The State appeals pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, par. 604(a)) from an order of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County dismissing the cause for want of prosecution.

Both parties joined in a motion for continuance based partially on the unavailability of essential witnesses. The motion was denied and the trial judge, Judge Reardon, called for voir dire examination of prospective jurors. The assistant State's Attorney declined to proceed with voir dire, and defense counsel renewed his motion for continuance. Judge Reardon then dismissed the case for "want of prosecution" and the People appeal from this ruling. Defendant did not file a brief on appeal.

• 1-2 The sole issue here is whether the court on its own motion before trial could dismiss the charges for want of prosecution. In accord with People v. Guido, 11 Ill. App.3d 1067, 297 N.E.2d 18, People v. Hoover, 12 Ill. App.3d 25, 297 N.E.2d 400, People v. Barksdale, 110 Ill. App.2d 163, 249 N.E.2d 165, and People v. Shick, 101 Ill. App.2d 377, 243 N.E.2d 285, we hold that in the absence of one of the grounds set forth in section 114-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 114-1), the action of the trial court was improper. Where the motion for a continuance has been properly denied the case should be called for trial, and if no evidence or insufficient evidence is presented by the People, then a judgment of acquittal may be entered by the court.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

STENGEL and BARRY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Thomas

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District
Jan 14, 1975
24 Ill. App. 3d 907 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)

ruling that where a continuance based on unavailability of essential witnesses is denied and the State fails to present evidence sufficient to convict, a judgment of acquittal may be entered by the court on its own motion

Summary of this case from People v. Ortiz

In People v. Thomas (1975), 24 Ill. App.3d 907, 322 N.E.2d 97, this court reviewed a trial court's dismissal for want of prosecution.

Summary of this case from People v. Hollan

In Thomas the reviewing court held that a trial court was not authorized to dismiss a criminal charge for want of prosecution. It also suggested, however, that where a motion for continuance has been properly denied the case should be called for trial and, if no evidence or insufficient evidence is presented by the State, a judgment of acquittal may be entered by the court.

Summary of this case from People v. Hall

In Thomas the court said a dismissal for want of prosecution was not specified in section 114-1 and consequently, the charge could not be dismissed for other reasons.

Summary of this case from People v. Deems
Case details for

People v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District

Date published: Jan 14, 1975

Citations

24 Ill. App. 3d 907 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)
322 N.E.2d 97

Citing Cases

People v. Mooar

( People v. Guido (1973), 11 Ill. App.3d 1067, 1069, 297 N.E.2d 18, 19.) Accordingly, it has been repeatedly…

People v. Hollan

Flanigon further argues that he was properly acquitted when the State presented no evidence at the trial.…