{ "id": 2878954, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Robert Stuckey, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Stuckey", "decision_date": "1966-05-23", "docket_number": "No. 38184", "first_page": "521", "last_page": "523", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "34 Ill. 2d 521" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "408 Ill. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2642786 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "136" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/408/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 Ill. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5044719 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/297/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Ill.2d 313", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2794126 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/23/0313-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill.2d 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2883470 ], "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0606-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 Ill. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2529696 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "212" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/373/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Ill.2d 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2742008 ], "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "53" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/19/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 N.E.2d 704", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "705" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 Ill.2d 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5352772 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/25/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 N.E.2d 12", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "13" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Ill.2d 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2725693 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/10/0556-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 298, "char_count": 3913, "ocr_confidence": 0.785, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.206162017231713e-07, "percentile": 0.8661726996438789 }, "sha256": "8c2936920fd89f29ccf8b417650e91398d83ce3c413532bd9432484dea073f0b", "simhash": "1:38f22ff46008a905", "word_count": 653 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:21.499506+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Robert Stuckey, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn February 19, 1962, the defendant, Robert L. Stuckey, surrendered himself at a Chicago police station and signed a written statement concerning the death of his wife, Bernice Thomas Stuckey. On March 8, 1962, he was indicted for the murder of \u201cLouise Thomas Stuckey,\u201d and March 15 he was arraigned, and the court continued the case to May 9, 1962. On that date, and subsequently on June 1, 1962, defendant\u2019s motions for continuance were granted, and on June 22, on motion of the State, the cause was continued to July 20. On June 25, 1962, the grand jury returned another indictment, which was identical with the first except that it charged the defendant with the murder of \u201cBernice Thomas Stuckey.\u201d The defendant was arraigned under the new indictment on July 2, 1962.\nOn July 19, 1962, the defendant moved for discharge on the ground that he had been committed for more than four months without trial. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap. 38, par. 748.) The motion was denied, a jury was waived, the testimony was stipulated, and the defendant was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not less than five nor more than fifteen years.\nOn this appeal the jurisdiction of this court is sought to be sustained upon the ground that the provisions of the statute are \u201cmandatory and confer a substantial and absolute right upon the defendant under the constitution. People v. House, 10 Ill.2d 556, 141 N.E.2d 12, 13; People v. Nelson, 25 Ill.2d 38, 182 N.E.2d 704, 705.\u201d A motion to transfer the cause to the appellate court was denied.\nThe statute upon which the defendant relies provided: \u201cAny person committed for a criminal or supposed criminal offense, and not admitted to bail, and not tried by the court having jurisdiction of the offense, within four months of the date of commitment, shall be set at liberty by the court, unless the delay shall happen on the application of the prisoner, * * Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap. 38, par. 748.\nThis court has often stated that the statute is designed \u201cto implement the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by section 9 of article II of the Illinois constitution, * * (People v. Benson, (1960) 19 Ill.2d 50, 53; see also, e.g., People v. Stillwagon, (1940) 373 Ill. 211, 212.) As a practical matter the statute operates to prevent the constitutional issue from arising except in cases involving prolonged delay, or novel issues such as were presented in People v. Moriarity, (1965) 33 Ill.2d 606, and People v. Bryarly, (1962) 23 Ill.2d 313. It does not follow, however, that the statutory requirement is the precise equivalent of the constitutional guaranty. On the contrary, this court has stated: \u201cIt is to be observed that the statute was enacted to give effect to section 9 of the Bill of Rights, securing to an accused in a criminal case a speedy trial. The constitution does not fix the time, and the statute is only intended to implement the provisions of the constitution, but a violation of the statute or of the procedure under the statute does not in itself create a constitutional question. (People v. Maniatis, 297 Ill. 72.)\u201d People v. Hartman, 408 Ill. 133, 136.\nUpon further consideration we have concluded that no substantial constitutional question is presented upon this record, and the cause is transferred to the Appellate Court, First District.\nCause transferred.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer" } ], "attorneys": [ "Montgomery, Holt & Bolden, of Chicago, (Leo E. Holt, of counsel,) appointed by the court, for appellant.", "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and Carmen Speranza, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 38184.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Robert Stuckey, Appellant.\nOpinion filed May 23, 1966.\nMontgomery, Holt & Bolden, of Chicago, (Leo E. Holt, of counsel,) appointed by the court, for appellant.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and Carmen Speranza, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0521-01", "first_page_order": 521, "last_page_order": 523 }