The People v. Armes

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. De Filippo

    387 Ill. App. 3d 322 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 4 times
    Rejecting the State's argument that the committee comments and related case law indicate the legislature intended the only elements necessary to prove forgery were that a person made a false document capable of defrauding another with intent to defraud

    Still, in light of the case law cited by the State, we examine its argument further. Citing the aforementioned Committee Comments and People v. Armes, 28 Ill. 2d 83, 86 (1963), the State argues that the only elements necessary to prove forgery are that a person made a false document capable of defrauding another, with the intent to defraud. We note that Armes pertained to a 1955 forgery statute, prior to the 1961 recodification.

  2. Long v. Pate

    418 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1970)   Cited 36 times

    Constitutional questions can be and are waived unless asserted at the trial, People v. Bruckman, 33 Ill.2d 150, 210 N.E.2d 537 (1965), and when the appellant failed to object to the comments at the time they occurred and failed to raise the objection in a written motion for a new trial they are deemed waived. People v. Serrano, 32 Ill.2d 84, 203 N.E.2d 885 (1965); People v. Donald, 29 Ill.2d 283, 194 N.E.2d 227 (1963); People v. Armes, 28 Ill.2d 83, 190 N.E.2d 812 (1963). The fact that the defendant was appearing pro se cannot be used as an excuse for failing to object, since counsel had been appointed to advise him.

  3. The People v. Long

    39 Ill. 2d 40 (Ill. 1968)   Cited 41 times
    Finding the trial court did not err in instructing the jury in the language of the statute, but not in the language of the indictment

    The fact that defendant was appearing pro se cannot be used as an excuse for failing to object, particularly since counsel had been appointed and was available to advise him. ( People v. Richardson, 17 Ill.2d 253.) Constitutional questions can be and are waived unless asserted at the trial ( People v. Bruckman, 33 Ill.2d 150), and when no objections are made to questions or comments at the time they occurred nor raised in a written motion for a new trial, they are deemed waived. ( People v. Serrano, 32 Ill.2d 84; People v. Donald, 29 Ill.2d 283; People v. Armes, 28 Ill.2d 83.) In any event, the remarks here complained of were provoked by defendant's own actions in persisting in a line of questioning to which an objection had been sustained.

  4. The People v. Armes

    227 N.E.2d 745 (Ill. 1967)   Cited 32 times

    The petitioner, John H. Armes, was convicted of forgery after a jury trial in the circuit court of Franklin County and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 7 to 14 years. This court, on writ of error, affirmed his conviction in 28 Ill.2d 83. Petitioner now appeals to this court from an order of the trial court denying his petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, par. 122-1 et seq.) He contends that the delay between the return of an indictment against him and commencement of his trial on September 26, 1960, deprived him of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. It is the State's contention that the doctrines of res judicata or waiver preclude the petitioner from properly raising this issue here. The petitioner did not move for discharge on the ground that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial prior to trial, at trial, nor in his post-trial motions.

  5. The People v. Serrano

    203 N.E.2d 885 (Ill. 1965)   Cited 3 times

    It is sufficient answer to these contentions that since no objections were made to the questions or comments at the time they occurred nor challenges made to their propriety in the written motion for a new trial, they are deemed waived. People v. Donald, 29 Ill.2d 283, 287; People v. Armes, 28 Ill.2d 83, 87. The judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is affirmed.

  6. People v. Rhoads

    110 Ill. App. 3d 1107 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)   Cited 17 times
    Finding victim had sufficient mental faculty to identify her attacker because she was able to answer questions about the incident

    However, points not raised in defendant's motion for a new trial are waived and generally will not be considered on appeal. People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill.2d 280, 282; People v. Armes (1963), 28 Ill.2d 83, 87; People v. Zielinski (1957), 10 Ill.2d 473, 478. "The purpose of this rule is apparent.

  7. People v. Jones

    86 Ill. App. 3d 278 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)   Cited 16 times
    Stating that "[a]cting as a lookout is sufficient aiding and abetting to render one accountable for the crimes committed by the more active party"

    The State argues that the defendant has waived this issue by failing to object to the closing arguments and by failing to raise the issue in the post-trial motion for a new trial. ( People v. Moore (1973), 55 Ill.2d 570, 304 N.E.2d 622; People v. Armes (1963), 28 Ill.2d 83, 190 N.E.2d 812.) The defendant argues that the remarks are so prejudicial that they constitute plain error, noticeable by this court under Supreme Court Rule 615(a).

  8. The People v. Mikota

    1 Ill. App. 3d 114 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 13 times

    In the instant case defendant not only exposed himself to the girl, he held his penis, swung it and smiled while attempting to corner her against a building. Such conduct on the part of defendant is sufficient to allow an inference to be drawn that he had the intent to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires. The words "or other person" found in the complaint are immaterial and may therefor be disregarded as surplusage. ( People v. Armes (1963), 28 Ill.2d 83, 86; People v. Figgers (1962), 23 Ill.2d 516, 519.) The evidence brought out at the trial of this case was therefore not at variance with the complaint.

  9. People v. Harter

    86 Ill. App. 2d 461 (Ill. App. Ct. 1967)   Cited 12 times

    People v. Malmenato, 14 Ill.2d 52, 59, 150 N.E.2d 806 (1958); People v. Booher, 73 Ill. App.2d 226, 229, 218 N.E.2d 779 (1966). [11, 12] The defendant also complains that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the purpose of the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, as set forth in defendant's instruction number 8. Such alleged error need not be considered in that it was not set forth in defendant's written motion for new trial (People v. Armes, 28 Ill.2d 83, 87, 190 N.E.2d 812 (1963); People v. Hunter, 23 Ill.2d 177, 178, 177 N.E.2d 138 (1961); People v. Flynn, 8 Ill.2d 116, 118, 119, 133 N.E.2d 257 (1956)), and because the defendant failed to abstract all of the instructions which were tendered and given. People v. Bybee, 9 Ill.2d 214, 221, 137 N.E.2d 251 (1956); People v. Weil, 243 Ill. 208, 214, 90 N.E. 731 (1910).