{ "id": 5272096, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert Pronger, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Pronger", "decision_date": "1964-05-04", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 49,545", "first_page": "477", "last_page": "483", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "48 Ill. App. 2d 477" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "13 NE2d 278", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "368 Ill 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2571335 ], "year": 1938, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "251" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/368/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 NE 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1929, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 Ill 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5229945 ], "year": 1929, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "262" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/336/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 NE2d 591", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "375 Ill 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2536727 ], "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "371" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/375/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 NE2d 548", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "384 Ill 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2490772 ], "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/384/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 NE2d 612", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "411 Ill 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5313490 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "146" }, { "page": "146" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/411/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 NE2d 615", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 Ill2d 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2767165 ], "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "507" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/15/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 NE2d 638", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 Ill2d 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2729310 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/21/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 NE2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "406 Ill 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2635307 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493" }, { "page": "494" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/406/0490-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 NE2d 407", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "415 Ill 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2684599 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/415/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 NE 12", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1923, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 Ill 575", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5098777 ], "year": 1923, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/308/0575-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 NE2d 773", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "398 Ill 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2460149 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/398/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 NE2d 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 Ill App2d 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5126297 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/2/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 NE 204", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1924, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 Ill 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5107634 ], "year": 1924, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "567" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/310/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 NE2d 236", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 Ill2d 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5354065 ], "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/25/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 NE2d 552", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill App2d 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5789560 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/30/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 NE2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill2d 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2827316 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/30/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 NE 208", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 Ill 451", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2426264 ], "year": 1921, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "452" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/300/0451-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 575, "char_count": 9545, "ocr_confidence": 0.563, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.0484966869919546e-07, "percentile": 0.9076660453949246 }, "sha256": "09ac0e1deb102969e791ea3976f3583a5f0fee1b4679828ac260352b2e7c39c4", "simhash": "1:067286f4d64b0bb1", "word_count": 1632 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:28:25.209130+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BURMAN and KLUCZYNSKI, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert Pronger, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. PRESIDING- JUSTICE MURPHY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant, Robert Pronger, was found guilty in a nonjury trial of \u201cthe crime of concealing stolen property in manner and form as charged in the indictment.\u201d He was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than one year nor more than two years. Defendant prosecutes this writ of error, which was transferred to this court by the Supreme Court.\nThe determinative question is whether the indictment charged the crime for which defendant was tried and convicted. The indictment, captioned \u201cIndictment for concealing stolen property,\u201d charged that defendant \u201ccommitted the offense of possessing an engine for a motor vehicle with identification of the engine removed, in that he, knowingly had in his possession an engine for a motor vehicle, to wit: an engine for a 1962 Chevrolet automobile, with the identification number of said engine being removed.\u201d\nThe facts, as disclosed by the evidence, show that on May 5, 1962, police officers, with a search warrant, found under a blanket in the yard of defendant\u2019s home, a motor vehicle engine which had been taken from a stolen motor vehicle. It was an \u201coriginal\u201d 409 Chevrolet engine, without an identification number. \u201cReplacement\u201d engines do not have numbers but all \u201coriginal\u201d engines do. A special agent of the National Automobile Theft Bureau testified that he examined the engine-, and \u201cit was quite smooth and shiny. There were some markings indicating that the boss had been ground by one method or another. . . . The milling was ground off by grinding and filing. . . . We were unsuccessful in both attempts to raise numbers.\u201d\nDefendant, a car racer and mechanic, testified that on May 3, 1962, a two-year acquaintance, named Freddie Hall, brought to him a 409 Chevrolet motor. Hall told him it was a new motor. Defendant looked for and found no serial number on the motor \u2014 \u201cthere wasn\u2019t any number on it.\u201d He further testified, \u201cFreddie Hall never told me that was a stolen motor. He told me he wanted me to put clearances in it. . . . The motor was visible from the sidewalk in my back yard. I never had a chance to work on this motor. ... At the time I examined this motor, I thought it was a motor that was bought from a Chewy dealer, a replacement motor.\u201d\nThe People contend that the indictment properly charged a crime, and that defendant was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating the Illinois Motor Vehicle Act (Ill Rev Stats, c 95%), either section 4-102 (h) or 4-102 (i), or both. These subsections relate to possessory offenses. Subsection (h) proscribes the possession \u201cof a motor vehicle, knowing that an identification number of the motor vehicle or engine has been removed or falsified.\u201d Subsection (i) declares that it shall be unlawful for a person to possess \u201ca motor vehicle or an engine for a motor vehicle, with knowledge that an identification number of the motor vehicle or engine has been removed or falsified and with intent to conceal or misrepresent the identity of the motor vehicle or engine.\u201d\nA violation of subsection (h) is declared to be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine or imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed one year, or both. A violation of subsection (i) is declared to be a felony, punishable by a fine or imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period not to exceed three years, or both, Ch 95%, \u00a7 4-106.\nInitially, we agree with the People that a caption is not part of an indictment and has no bearing upon the sufficiency of the charge. (People v. Shaw, 300 Ill 451, 452, 133 NE 208 (1921).) It is the body of the indictment, rather than the caption, which must specifically state the essential elements of the crime or crimes with which defendant is charged. (People v. Sellers, 30 Ill2d 221, 223, 196 NE2d 481 (1964).) An indictment need not state specifically the statut\u00e9 violated by the acts alleged to be a crime, and this holds true where there are several statutory provisions under which the charge might fall. (People v. Crosson, 30 Ill App2d 57, 60, 173 NE2d 552 (1961).) Also, an indictment is sufficient if it informs an accused of the charge, enables him to prepare a defense, and protects from further prosecution (People v. Rosenfeld, 25 Ill2d 473, 185 NE2d 236 (1962)), and it is not necessary that an indictment contain all the language of the statute on the subject. People v. Love, 310 Ill 558, 567, 142 NE 204 (1924).\nWe agree with defendant\u2019s contention that the indictment does not charge a crime under either subsection (h) or (i). Subsection (h) proscribes the possession of a \u201cmotor vehicle,\u201d while subsections (f), (g) and (i), all relating to identification number violations, refer specifically to \u201ca motor vehicle or an engine for a motor vehicle.\u201d The omission of \u201cor an engine for a motor vehicle\u201d in subsection (h) is significant. Violations of subsection (h), regardless of criminal intent, are limited to \u201ca motor vehicle, knowing that an identification number of the motor vehicle or engine has been removed or falsified.\u201d\nWe are not persuaded by the People that this is a situation where a court \u201cmay supply words inadvertently omitted in a statute to effectuate legislative intent.\u201d (Secco v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2 Ill App2d 239, 119 NE2d 471 (1954).) Nor is this a situation where the legislature \u201cpalpably omitted\u201d a phrase and where the court may read into a section a \u201cplainly implied\u201d phrase to prevent the legislative purpose from failing in one of its material aspects. (People v. Anderson, 398 Ill 480, 76 NE2d 773 (1947).) Although a statute must he interpreted according to its object, intent and meaning, and not always according to the letter (People v. McEldowney, 308 Ill 575, 140 NE 12 (1923)), a criminal statute must be strictly construed in favor of the accused. (People v. McGowan, 415 Ill 375, 114 NE2d 407 (1953).) The plain implication is that the legislature intended to omit \u201cor an engine for a motor vehicle\u201d in subsection (h). Therefore, we conclude that subsection (h) applies only to the possession of a motor vehicle and not to an \u201cengine,\u201d the subject of the instant alleged crime.\nAs to subsection (i), the indictment does not allege that defendant possessed the engine \u201cwith intent to conceal or misrepresent\u201d its identity. We find no merit in the contention of the People that this offense is not a specific intent crime, and that the omitted clause was not essential to the indictment. Nor do we believe that the use of the word \u201cknowingly\u201d in this indictment implies \u201cintent to conceal or misrepresent.\u201d \u201cWhere the statutory definition of a crime includes the intent with which the act is committed as an element of the offense, the intent must be alleged.\u201d (People v. Edge, 406 Ill 490, 493, 94 NE2d 359 (1950).) In the absence of the allegation in the indictment of the phrase \u201cwith intent to conceal or misrepresent the identity of the . . . engine,\u201d or other appropriate words, the indictment failed to charge defendant with the violation of subsection (i).\nFinally, we find no merit in the contention of the People that \u201cthe defendant waived any right to object to the indictment by a failure to present a motion to quash.\u201d (People v. Meaderds, 21 Ill2d 145, 171 NE2d 638 (1961); People v. Barney, 15 Ill2d 503, 507, 155 NE2d 615 (1959).) The cases upon which the People rely hold that it is only the technical objections to the indictment which cannot be heard for the first time subsequent to the trial. Here, the motion in arrest of judgment preserved for review the question of defects in the indictment and opens up the entire record for examination in this court for any apparent defect, even though there was no motion to quash or such motion was not made in apt time. (People v. Plocar, 411 Ill 141, 146, 103 NE2d 612 (1952); People v. Edge, 406 Ill 490, 494, 94 NE2d 359.) In People v. Fore, 384 Ill 455 (1943), it is said (p 458), 51 NE2d 548:\n\u201cWhere an indictment is insufficient, as here, to charge a public offense we must reverse the judgment of conviction notwithstanding the point was not raised in the trial court, as no waiver or consent by the defendant to a criminal prosecution can confer jurisdiction or authorize his conviction in the absence of an accusation charging him with a violation of the criminal law.\u201d\nWe believe this indictment was insufficient to charge a crime, and it could not be helped by a bill of particulars. (People v. Flynn, 375 Ill 366, 371, 31 NE2d 591 (1941).) An accused should know precisely what he is to defend against. (People v. Brown, 336 Ill 257, 262, 168 NE 289 (1929).) If an indictment is insufficient, it is error to overrule a motion in arrest of judgment, and on review the proper order is one of reversal without remanding. (People v. Green, 368 Ill 242, 251, 13 NE2d 278 (1938); People v. Plocar, 411 Ill 141, 146, 103 NE2d 612.) Therefore, the judgment must be and it is hereby reversed, and the plaintiff in error discharged.\nReversed.\nBURMAN and KLUCZYNSKI, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. PRESIDING- JUSTICE MURPHY" } ], "attorneys": [ "John J. Cogan, Bellows, Bellows and Magidson, all of CMcago, for plaintiff in error.", "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield (Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, Elmer C. Kissane and Matthew J. Moran, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert Pronger, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 49,545.\nFirst District, First Division.\nMay 4, 1964.\nJohn J. Cogan, Bellows, Bellows and Magidson, all of CMcago, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield (Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, Elmer C. Kissane and Matthew J. Moran, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0477-01", "first_page_order": 489, "last_page_order": 495 }