{
  "id": 1588385,
  "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kurt Spencer, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Spencer",
  "decision_date": "1969-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 53,142",
  "first_page": "398",
  "last_page": "401",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "115 Ill. App. 2d 398"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "251 NE2d 325",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ill App2d 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1590970
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/112/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 NE2d 321",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill App2d 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1601080
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/104/0479-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 NE2d 76",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill App2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2561943
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/80/0243-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 NE2d 841",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill App 2d 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2535626
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/96/0153-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 NE2d 708",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill2d 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2826745
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/30/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 4895,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.641,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.67462171716641e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6964938882537167
    },
    "sha256": "d028c8981ec1a0db042dc9eef4c33af9754ef9c9fc0f7e1883315025a2e76c7c",
    "simhash": "1:e4f27ea5292f881b",
    "word_count": 833
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:12:48.620365+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kurt Spencer, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE SCHWARTZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn a nonjury trial the defendant was found guilty of theft of a ring valued at more than $150. The court after a hearing in aggravation and mitigation imposed a sentence but immediately put the defendant on probation for three years, the first thirty days thereof to be spent in the House of Correction. As the only contention raised on appeal is that defendant\u2019s waiver of his right to a jury trial was not \u201cunderstandingly\u201d made, we here present the colloquy between the court, the defendant and his lawyer relating to the jury waiver:\nTHE CLERK: \u201cThe People of the State of Elinois versus Kurt Spencer,\u201d\nMR. TOOLE [Defendant\u2019s attorney] : \u201cWe are ready for trial, Judge, this will be a trial by the court.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cYou understand, Mr. Spencer, you have a right to trial by jury?\u201d\nDEFENDANT: \u201cYes, your Honor.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cYou are waiving that right and you wish to be tried by this court?\u201d\nDEFENDANT: \u201cYes, I do, your Honor.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cWill you indicate that by signing the jury waiver, please?\u201d\nDEFENDANT: \u201cI\u2019ll do that.\u201d\nMR. TOOLE: \u201cFor the record, I\u2019m tendering to the court a jury waiver signed by the defendant, Kurt Spencer.\u201d\nThe statute provides that anyone accused of a criminal offense has the \u201cright to a trial by jury unless understandingly waived by the defendant in open court.\u201d Ill Rev Stats, c 38, \u00a7 103-6 (1965). Whether such a waiver has been understandingly made depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. People v. Wesley, 30 Ill2d 131, 195 NE2d 708; People v. Suarez, 96 Ill App 2d 153, 237 NE2d 841. In the case before us the record shows that the defendant was informed of his right to trial by jury and that this right could be waived and that if he waived it, he would be tried by the court.\nAs the issue involved is the understanding of the defendant, the duty imposed upon the court is to see that the defendant is informed, in words and language he understands, of his right to a jury trial. There can be no specific or defined formula to follow in determining whether a jury waiver is understandingly made. People v. Crable, 80 Ill App2d 243, 225 NE2d 76. We must assume however in the absence of anything to the contrary that \u201cwaiver\u201d and \u201cjury\u201d are words that are commonly understood.\nDefendant relies heavily on People v. Bell, 104 Ill App2d 479, 244 NE2d 321. The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from those now before the court. In Bell the following colloquy took place when the case was called:\nMR. FISHMAN [Defendant\u2019s attorney]: \u201cThis is a jury waiver. Do you know what that is ?\u201d\nDEFENDANT BELL: \u201cA what ?\u201d\nMR. FISHMAN: \u201cA jury trial is? And you don\u2019t want a jury trial, is that right?\nDEFENDANT BELL: \u201cNo.\u201d\nMR. FISHMAN: \u201cSign that.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cAll right, this document you have signed, you know this is a waiver of jury?\u201d\nDEFENDANT BELL: \u201cYes.\u201d\nThe court, on the basis of the foregoing dialogue, held that the defendant was not properly apprised of his right to a jury trial and that his attempted waiver was, therefore, ineffective because not understandingly made. That holding rested on a finding that the \u201cdefendant never manifested an understanding of the nature of a jury trial. His only response when questioned about this was \u2018A what?\u2019 \u201d His lawyer then said, \u201cA jury trial.\u201d The court, unable to find anything that explained to the defendant the meaning or consequences of a jury waiver, concluded that \u201cunder these circumstances defendant\u2019s waiver was not understandingly made. . . .\u201d In a supplemental opinion denying a petition for rehearing the court said:\n\u201cDefendant\u2019s questioning answer should have alerted the trial court to the need of an explanation of what a jury trial was and of his entitlement to a jury trial so that defendant could understandingly decide whether or not he wished to waive a jury trial.\u201d\nIn the recent case of People v. Collins, 112 Ill App2d 458, 251 NE2d 325, we decided that \u201cit would be an unwarranted extension of the Bell case to read that decision as requiring such an explanation in all cases.\u201d\nIn the instant case the questions and answers contain no ambiguities and, unlike Bell, no hint of any lack of adequate understanding. On the contrary, we think the defendant\u2019s desire for a nonjury trial was clear and unmistakable. Accordingly the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nDEMPSEY, P. J. and McNAMARA, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE SCHWARTZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Herbert Becker, Norman W. Fishman, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kurt Spencer, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 53,142.\nFirst District, Third Division.\nOctober 9, 1969.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Herbert Becker, Norman W. Fishman, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0398-01",
  "first_page_order": 404,
  "last_page_order": 407
}