{
  "id": 3557840,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM SMITH, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1983-06-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 81\u20143058",
  "first_page": "453",
  "last_page": "455",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "115 Ill. App. 3d 453"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "382 N.E.2d 793",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Ill. 2d 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5442426
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/72/0515-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "442 N.E.2d 154",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. 2d 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3098298
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/92/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "398 N.E.2d 1071",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill. App. 3d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3235208
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "132"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/80/0128-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 N.E.2d 724",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. 2d 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2932788
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/54/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "367 N.E.2d 703",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5812039
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/67/0242-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 3825,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.739979640525338e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40859254728750594
    },
    "sha256": "e9c9aaf2abe8b7d80ff29f35024391cb92d1adc1c79545d8fa4731e848bb8489",
    "simhash": "1:b8ce226da54abbd4",
    "word_count": 607
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:16:24.783716+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM SMITH, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE BUCKLEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, William Smith, was arrested and charged with felony theft. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 16 \u2014 1(a)(1).) The State appeals from an order of the trial court sustaining the defendant\u2019s pretrial motion to quash the indictment.\nThe record shows that on September 9, 1981, the defendant was arrested and charged with theft by felony complaint for preliminary examination. On that date the defendant\u2019s bond was set and the matter was continued on his motion to September 24, 1981, at which time the matter was again continued to October 20, 1981, so that defendant could obtain counsel. When defendant appeared in court with his counsel on the latter date for the preliminary hearing, he was informed by the prosecutor that he had been indicted by the grand jury on October 13,1981, and would not receive a preliminary hearing.\nFollowing a hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to quash the indictment, the trial court stated that by proceeding by complaint for preliminary hearing and then proceeding to indictment without first obtaining the preliminary hearing, the State put \u201cthe defendant through a lot of unnecessary judicial or defense delay.\u201d The court then sustained the defendant\u2019s motion.\nThe State contends that the trial court erred by granting defendant\u2019s motion to quash the indictment which charged him with the same offense as the pending complaint for preliminary hearing. It maintains that the defendant is not constitutionally entitled to a preliminary hearing where he is initially charged by criminal complaint, but then is indicted for the same crime prior to hearing on the complaint. We agree.\nIt is a well-established rule that a defendant has no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing for determination of probable cause because a State may, consistent with due process, dispense with the preliminary hearing procedure and initiate the criminal proceeding directly by grand jury indictment. (People v. Redmond, (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 242, 367 N.E.2d 703; People v. Hendrix (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 165, 295 N.E.2d 724.) The alternative procedures of grand jury indictment and preliminary hearing both serve the function of determining probable cause, and to require a repetition of this function by conducting post-indictment preliminary hearings would be an empty formality serving no legitimate purpose. (People v. Franklin (1979), 80 Ill. App. 3d 128, 398 N.E.2d 1071.) All that is required is that an accused be afforded a prompt probable-cause determination of the validity of the charge either at a preliminary hearing or by an indictment by a grand jury. People v. Kline (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 490, 442 N.E.2d 154.\nWe agree with People v. Franklin that \u201cthe statutory and procedural safeguards built into the criminal justice system, the most important being the right of the accused to a fair and impartial trial (see People v. Creque (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 515, 382 N.E.2d 793), minimize any disparity which may arise from the State\u2019s two-part scheme of initiating criminal proceedings.\u201d (80 Ill. App. 3d 128, 132.) We therefore hold that the trial court erred by quashing the indictment herein.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nMcGLOON and GOLDBERG, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE BUCKLEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Paula Carstensen, and Bryan David Schultz, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.",
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (John Thomas Moran, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM SMITH, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 81\u20143058\nOpinion filed June 13, 1983.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Paula Carstensen, and Bryan David Schultz, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (John Thomas Moran, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0453-01",
  "first_page_order": 475,
  "last_page_order": 477
}