{
  "id": 2822762,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, vs. Joseph Aiuppa et al., Defendants in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Aiuppa",
  "decision_date": "1963-09-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 37846",
  "first_page": "65",
  "last_page": "67",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. 2d 65"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill.2d 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5358190
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/27/0044-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3515,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.793,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6014910521810345
    },
    "sha256": "eb8887015112be0d4fdd159552a7b412db8e22273a7a688b89e61bc288f49f32",
    "simhash": "1:6f5a40b3ea463ff5",
    "word_count": 598
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:19.423812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, vs. Joseph Aiuppa et al., Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an interlocutory writ of error sued out by the People from an order of the criminal court of Cook County which quashed a search warrant and suppressed certain evidence. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 38, par. 747.\nThe defendants were indicted for gambling and keeping a gambling place. Before the trial they moved to suppress certain evidence that had been seized under a search warrant, and to quash the warrant. The warrant stated that it was issued upon the sworn complaint of David Smiley that he had reasonable grounds to believe that gaming apparatus and implements were concealed, kept and provided to be used in unlawful gaming in a specified room in a named hotel in Cicero, \u201cand that the said Duane Seavey has reasonable grounds to believe that the above-described room is resorted to for the purpose of unlawful gaming.\u201d\nThe motion to quash asserted \u201cthat the search warrant is not in the terms of the statute providing for said search warrant on the grounds that it recites that a stranger to said search warrant, one \u2018Duane Seavey has reasonable grounds to believe that the above-described room is resorted to for the purpose of unlawful gaming.\u2019 \u201d\nAt the hearing on the motion to quash, Michael Berry, a police officer, was called as a witness for the People and asked if he knew David Smiley by a different name. After an objection to the question was sustained, the People offered to prove by the testimony of the officer that David Smiley and Duane Seavey were the same person, and that the use of the name Duane Seavey in the warrant was due to a stenographic error. The trial court sustained the defendant\u2019s objection on the ground that \u201cyou cannot cure the defect on the face of an instrument, particularly a search warrant, by parol evidence.\u201d\nOn this writ of error, the People contend that \u201cthe trial court erroneously refused to allow the People to offer testimony to the effect that David Smiley and Duane Seavey are one and the same person\u201d and that under a proper construction of the applicable statute, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 38, par. 692,) the phrase in the warrant in which Duane Seavey\u2019s name appears is surplusage which may be disregarded.\nDefendants have moved to transfer the case to the Appellate Court and the motion is well taken. The offenses charged are misdemeanors under the new Criminal Code, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 38, pars. 28 \u2014 1, 28 \u2014 3,) and jurisdiction of an appeal or writ of error is therefore in the Appellate Court (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 38, par. 780\u00bd) unless a construction of the constitution is involved.\nThe questions involved in this case relate to the admissibility of evidence to explain what seems to be an obvious error on the face of the warrant, and to the construction of the statute which authorized the issuance of the warrant. No question involving a construction of the constitution is involved. See, People v. Nardone, 27 Ill.2d 44.\nThe cause is therefore transferred to the Appellate Court for the First District.\n, Cause transferred.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Edward J. Hladis and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.",
      "George M. Crane and Myer H. Gladstone, both of Chicago, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 37846.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, vs. Joseph Aiuppa et al., Defendants in Error.\nOpinion filed September 27, 1963.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Edward J. Hladis and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.\nGeorge M. Crane and Myer H. Gladstone, both of Chicago, for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0065-01",
  "first_page_order": 71,
  "last_page_order": 73
}