{
  "id": 2908293,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jefferson B. Tucker, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Tucker",
  "decision_date": "1971-01-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 55167",
  "first_page": "598",
  "last_page": "599",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "131 Ill. App. 2d 598"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "149 N.E. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ill. 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5151977
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "296"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/318/0293-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N.E.2d 473",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill.App.2d 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5284235
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "259"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/55/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill.App.2d 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5289735
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/67/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ill.2d 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2903528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/47/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill.App.2d 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5257531
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/37/0344-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 2935,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.763,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.461913359783981e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8056236097162421
    },
    "sha256": "2fdca6b723ba3b1472b36fa4fd06426debe1b8579bd47c835713ec7b2458868d",
    "simhash": "1:c02a801db1c009b7",
    "word_count": 488
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:11:16.150777+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jefferson B. Tucker, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE STAMOS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA jury found defendant guilty of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was fined $100.00 and his driver\u2019s license was revoked. Defendant appeals from the judgment on the verdict and initially contends that the complaint fails to charge a violation of law.\nThe 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. 95\u00bd, \u00a7 144 (1965) by \u201cdriving under the influence.\u201d\nIn People v. Stringfield (1962), 37 Ill.App.2d 344, 346 this court stated:\n\u201cThis section of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways (Ill. Rev. Stat. (1961), c 95\u00bd, \u00a7 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. \u2018Driving under the influence\u2019 does not describe either of these offenses.\nThis court further stated at page 348:\n\u201cThe information was void and the conviction must be reversed.\u201d\nThe People move that this court allow an amendment of the complaint by furnishing the phrase \u201cof intoxicating liquor,\u201d 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:\n\u201cSection 111 \u2014 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1963, c 38, par. Ill \u2014 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.\u201d\nWe reverse the judgment.\nJudgment reversed.\nLEIGHTON, P. J., and McCORMICK, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE STAMOS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Howard T. Savage, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Martin Moltz, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jefferson B. Tucker, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 55167;\nFirst District\nJanuary 26, 1971.\nHoward T. Savage, of Chicago, for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Martin Moltz, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0598-01",
  "first_page_order": 618,
  "last_page_order": 619
}