People v. O'Dell

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Gill

    257 N.E.2d 115 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970)   Cited 2 times

    There was a showing that there was, in fact, no corporation and that the money did belong to the individuals. There was no variance between the indictment and the proof so that there was no error in this respect (People v. O'Dell, 343 Ill. App. 395, 99 N.E.2d 367). Several of the investors testified at the trial, in answer to questions, that defendant had no authority to accept money from Dutch Inns. Objections were made to such questions.

  2. People v. Davis

    349 Ill. App. 398 (Ill. App. Ct. 1953)

    Neither in this section nor elsewhere in the Motor Vehicle Act is it specifically stated whether the jury or the court should impose the sentence under such circumstances. The appellant relies on People v. Moore, 324 Ill. App. 109, and the appellee on the case of People v. O'Dell, 343 Ill. App. 395. The O'Dell case, supra, has recently been followed in People v. Mainard, 348 Ill. App. 53.

  3. People v. Mainard

    107 N.E.2d 878 (Ill. App. Ct. 1952)   Cited 2 times

    [9] Defendant lastly urges as error that the verdicts of the jury were defective in that the jury rather than the court fixed the penalty. In People v. O'Dell, 343 Ill. App. 395, the Appellate Court of the Third District held that the 1943 Amendment, sec. 754a (b) of the Criminal Code providing that the jury shall fix the punishment in certain cases involving misdemeanors does not amend the Medical Practice Act, that it is the duty of the court and not of the jury to impose the penalty therein provided. In our opinion this construction of the statute is correct.