{
  "id": 2819314,
  "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis E. Johnson, Jr., Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1968-02-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 66-60",
  "first_page": "378",
  "last_page": "380",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 Ill. App. 2d 378"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "224 NE2d 284",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill App2d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2563124
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/80/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 NE2d 765",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill App2d 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5289735
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/67/0292-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 2635,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.616,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0847642082607905
    },
    "sha256": "80aaee11c04a955c64e4717bf2d7760b7f2e5a54a62a9d22d194c669ab5458c0",
    "simhash": "1:9b9bbd0a5608a635",
    "word_count": 433
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:33.750102+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis E. Johnson, Jr., Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STOUDEB, J.\nDefendant, Louis E. Johnson, Jr., pled guilty to the offense of deceptive practices. The Circuit Court of Henry County imposed sentence and denied defendant\u2019s motion for post-trial relief. By our previous order in this appeal we affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded the cause for further hearing on the sentence to be imposed. Thereafter we granted rehearing and in view of our decision on the matters considered upon rehearing our previous order is hereby vacated.\nThe petition for rehearing is not based on the court\u2019s misapprehension of the law or any mistake in our former opinion but relies solely on a new basis for reversal of the trial court\u2019s judgment which basis for reversal was not previously urged in the trial court or in this court. Defendant now argues the information failed to state an offense and is therefore fatally defective. While we do not approve of defendant\u2019s failure to raise this objection at an earlier stage of the proceedings we believe the interests of justice require its consideration.\nDefendant was charged in the language of the statute with the violation of section 17-1 (d), chapter 38, Ill Rev Stats (1963), in that he \u201c. . . did then and there with intent to obtain control over certain property, to wit: gasoline . . . issue and deliver a certain bank check . . . knowing that it would not be paid by the depository, . . . .\u201d The charge does not allege that the act was done with \u201cthe intent to defraud\u201d and it is the omission of this allegation which defendant contends renders the charge fatally defective. This precise question has previously been considered in People v. Billingsley, 67 Ill App2d 292, 213 NE2d 765 and People v. Samples, 80 Ill App2d 182, 224 NE2d 284, and the court therein concluded that \u201cintent to defraud\u201d is an essential element of the offense and no offense is charged in the absence thereof. People v. Billingsley, supra, is also authority for the proposition that the error can be raised at any time. We find no support for the People\u2019s contention that the rule announced in such cases should be otherwise or that the rule is not applicable to this case. The charge, failing to state an offense, is thereof insufficient to support the conviction.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court of Henry County is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.\nALLOY, P. J. and CULBERTSON, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STOUDEB, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William E. Stewart, of Kewanee, for appellant.",
      "James Fulton, State\u2019s Attorney, of Cambridge, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis E. Johnson, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 66-60.\nThird District.\nFebruary 2, 1968.\nWilliam E. Stewart, of Kewanee, for appellant.\nJames Fulton, State\u2019s Attorney, of Cambridge, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0378-02",
  "first_page_order": 384,
  "last_page_order": 386
}