TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Tucker

The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jefferson B. Tucker, Defendant-Appellant

People v. Tucker, 268 N.E.2d 191 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 26, 1971
Docket
No. 55167
Judges
Stamos
Citations
268 N.E.2d 191131 Ill. App. 2d 5981971 Ill. App. LEXIS 1329
Cited by 13 3 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Stamos

Mr. JUSTICE STAMOS delivered the opinion of the court:

A jury found defendant guilty of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was fined $100.00 and his driver’s license was revoked. Defendant appeals from the judgment on the verdict and initially contends that the complaint fails to charge a violation of law.

The complaint charged that defendant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway in violation of Section 47 of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 95½, § 144 (1965) by “driving under the influence.”

In People v. Stringfield (1962), 37 Ill.App.2d 344 , 346 this court stated:

“This section of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways (Ill. Rev. Stat. (1961), c 95½, § 144) states that it is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs to drive any vehicle within this state. ‘Driving under the influence’ does not describe either of these offenses.

This court further stated at page 348:

“The information was void and the conviction must be reversed.”

The People move that this court allow an amendment of the complaint by furnishing the phrase “of intoxicating liquor,” and for authority cite People v. Sirinsky, 47 Ill.2d 183 . In Sirinsky, the court observed that the caption of the complaint was amended in this court on oral argument to reflect that the People of the State of Illinois, rather than the Municipality of Evanston was the complainant. In the case at bar the sought after amendment pertains to a substantive rather than formal amendment. In People v. Billingsley (1966), 67 Ill.App.2d 292 , this court expressed language pertinent to the case at bar. At page 301 we said:

“Section 111 — 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1963, c 38, par. Ill — 5) authorizes amendment at anytime because of formal, but not substantive, defects in an indictment, information or complaint. See People v. Hall (4th Dist. 1964), 55 Ill.App.2d 255, 259 , 204 N.E.2d 473 . However, the complaint in the case at bar was defective in a substantive matter in that it did not aUege a criminal offense. It was not amended in the trial court and we deem it improper to reverse and remand for that purpose. In view of our determination that the complaint was fataUy defective, it is improper to remand the cause for the futility of a new trial (People v. Minto (1925), 318 Ill. 293, 296 , 149 N.E. 241 ), and we need not consider the other errors assigned herein.”

We reverse the judgment.

Judgment reversed.

LEIGHTON, P. J., and McCORMICK, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1972: 21976: 21977: 11978: 11983: 21984: 11990: 11996: 11999: 219722026peak 1972 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Dunskus668 N.E.2d 1138 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)
  2. People v. McClurg552 N.E.2d 290 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)
  3. People v. Tellez-Valencia723 N.E.2d 223 (Ill. 1999)
  4. People v. Leach279 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)
  5. Smith v. State435 So. 2d 158 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)
  6. People v. Horberg462 N.E.2d 831 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)

Most recent

  1. People v. Tellez-Valencia723 N.E.2d 223 (Ill. 1999)
  2. People v. Tellez-ValenciaNo. 85524 (Ill. Nov. 18, 1999)
  3. People v. Dunskus668 N.E.2d 1138 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)
  4. People v. McClurg552 N.E.2d 290 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)
  5. People v. Horberg462 N.E.2d 831 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)
  6. People v. Utt461 N.E.2d 463 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Minto, 149 N.E. 241 (Ill. 1925) 35
People v. Hall, 204 N.E.2d 473 (Ill. App. Ct. 1964) 15
People v. Billingsley, 213 N.E.2d 765 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966) 41
People v. Stringfield, 185 N.E.2d 381 (Ill. App. Ct. 1962) 24
People v. Sirinsky, 265 N.E.2d 505 (Ill. 1970) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list