The People v. Cioppi

10 Citing cases

  1. The People v. Jones

    175 N.E. 414 (Ill. 1931)   Cited 14 times

    The term "intoxicating liquor" signifies that it is potable or fit for beverage purposes. ( People v. Cioppi, 322 Ill. 353.) An information under section 3 of the Illinois Prohibition act charging the unlawful possession and sale of intoxicating liquor need not specify the kind of liquor sold or allege that it was fit for use as a beverage. The statute has defined the term "intoxicating liquor," and a defendant so charged is sufficiently informed of the nature of the charge.

  2. The People v. Simmons

    166 N.E. 96 (Ill. 1929)   Cited 1 times

    An information charging unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale without a permit from the Attorney General to so possess the same need not further allege that the liquor was fit for beverage purposes, as the term "intoxicating liquor" signifies that it is potable or fit for beverage purposes. People v. Cioppi, 322 Ill. 353. The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

  3. The People v. Girard

    157 N.E. 239 (Ill. 1927)

    The information was sufficient. People v. Talbot, 322 Ill. 416; People v. Hollenbeck, 322 id. 443; People v. Zalapi, 321 id. 484; People v. Castree, 322 id. 471; People v. Cioppi, 322 id. 353. It is assigned as error that the court committed plaintiff in error to the State farm at Vandalia.

  4. The People v. Degeovanni

    157 N.E. 195 (Ill. 1927)   Cited 10 times
    In People v. DeGeovanni, 326 Ill. 230, at page 234, we said: "A complaint for a search warrant is to be regarded as sufficient to authorize the issuance of a search warrant when the facts therein stated and sworn to show probable cause for the writ. It is not required that the complaint for a search warrant should show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the writ should be issued."

    The complaint for the search warrant, and the warrant, were drawn in conformity with the provisions visions of the constitution aforesaid. People v. Shields, 309 Ill. 142; People v. Zalapi, 321 id. 484; People v. Cioppi, 322 id. 353. It is contended by the defendant that sections 29 and 30 of the Illinois Prohibition act are invalid because they do not require the judge or magistrate to determine, from facts stated in the complaint for a search warrant, whether or not there are probable grounds for the issuance of such warrant, and that said sections clearly undertake to transfer from the judge or magistrate all judicial discretion and to confer his judicial power upon the person making the complaint in order that he may determine the question of probable cause for issuing such warrant.

  5. People v. Fragoso

    68 Ill. App. 3d 428 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the U.S. Constitution, "[d]efendants had the burden of establishing the lack of particularity of description in the warrant yet they have never attempted to establish the existence of another 3445 West Diversey in Chicago, in Cook County, or, indeed, anywhere in the State"

    (See People v. Kimmel (1966), 34 Ill.2d 578, 217 N.E.2d 785; People v. Gifford (1975), 26 Ill. App.3d 272, 325 N.E.2d 81.) This suppression does not of course invalidate the seizure of the other items, for which no complaint of lack of specificity of description has been advanced. People v. Cioppi (1926), 322 Ill. 353, 153 N.E. 604; see People v. Russell (1977), 45 Ill. App.3d 961, 360 N.E.2d 515. Accordingly the order of the trial court is affirmed insofar as it suppressed the papers seized, but that order is reversed as to the quashing of the search warrant and suppression of the remaining items.

  6. United States Brewing Co. v. Village of Alsip

    225 N.E.2d 430 (Ill. App. Ct. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    " In People v. Cioppi, 322 Ill. 353, 153 N.E. 604, the court found that an indictment using the term "intoxicating liquor" included brandy, whiskey, rum, gin, beer, ale and wine, and in addition thereto any spirituous, vinous, malt or fermented liquor, liquids and compounds, whether medicated, proprietary, patented or not, and by whatever name called, containing one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume, which are fit for use for beverage purposes. By such definition near beer was excluded.

  7. People v. Nunn

    212 N.E.2d 342 (Ill. App. Ct. 1965)   Cited 25 times

    Whether or not the language could be construed as stating an offense under section 16-1(a) (1), we do not decide, because the conviction under Count I renders conviction under an additional count for the same act of no consequence. People v. Cioppi, 322 Ill. 353, 361, 153 N.E. 604. The judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court are affirmed.

  8. People v. Olive

    248 Ill. App. 220 (Ill. App. Ct. 1928)   Cited 3 times

    In such case it is not necessary to state that the liquor was fit for beverage purposes or sold for beverage purposes. (People v. San Filippo, 243 Ill. App. 146; People v. Alfano, 322 Ill. 384; People v. Cioppi, 322 Ill. 353.) In an information charging a violation of section 3 of the Illinois Prohibition Act, Cahill's St. ch. 43, ΒΆ 3, the information need not specify the particular variety of intoxicating liquor sold, the nature of the compound, whether medicated or not, its alcoholic content or its fitness for beverage purposes. If the offense is stated in the language of the statute, and so plainly that the nature of the offense may be easily understood by the jury, it is sufficient.

  9. People v. Lull

    246 Ill. App. 53 (Ill. App. Ct. 1927)

    A count in an indictment charging unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale need not allege that the liquor was fit for beverage purposes, as the term "intoxicating liquor" signifies that it is potable or fit for beverage purposes. People v. Cioppi, 322 Ill. 353. Furthermore, a charge of a violation of the Prohibition Act in the possession and sale of intoxicating liquor need not specify the kind of liquor sold nor allege that it was fit for use as a beverage, as the statute has defined the term "intoxicating liquor" and a defendant so charged with the violation of the statute is sufficiently informed of the nature of the charge. People v. Alfano, 322 Ill. 384.

  10. People v. San Filippo

    243 Ill. App. 146 (Ill. App. Ct. 1927)   Cited 3 times

    A count in an indictment charging unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purposes of sale need not allege that the liquor was fit for beverage purposes, as the term "intoxicating liquor" signifies that it is potable or fit for beverage purposes. People v. Cioppi, 322 Ill. 353. A charge of violation of the Prohibition Act in the possession and sale of intoxicating liquor need not specify the kind of liquor sold nor allege that it was fit for use as a beverage as the statute has defined the term "intoxicating liquor," and a defendant so charged with a violation of the statute is sufficiently informed of the nature of the charge.