{
  "id": 2793560,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Boyd, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Boyd",
  "decision_date": "1975-10-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-358",
  "first_page": "968",
  "last_page": "970",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. App. 3d 968"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "53 Ill.2d 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2925142
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/53/0585-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill.2d 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5407802
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/57/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill.2d 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2965685
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "339"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/61/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.E.2d 78",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill.App.3d 810",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2504802
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/23/0810-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.E.2d 520",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill.App.3d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5310171
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/24/0377-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 4910,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.717,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3393037586361213
    },
    "sha256": "f765544c5909db16ca14daf8541cab33b9ea27a4fb9db168027b57bd2eac7189",
    "simhash": "1:9322b9837331a40a",
    "word_count": 860
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:14:58.460223+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. James Boyd, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE GUILD\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn March 6, 1974, the defendant was found guilty in a bench trial of the offense of unlawful use of weapons and on April 1, 1974, was sentenced to 360 days at the State farm at Vandalia. The defendant appeals.\nThe sole issue presented in this case is whether the defendant\u2019s conviction was void for failure to allege in the complaint that the weapon was either concealed or loaded.\nOn October 2, 1973, the Rochelle police were alerted by an ISPERN message that a gasoline station had been held up by three or four armed men who fled in a yellow Chrysler station wagon. The police stopped the vehicle, which contained nine occupants, including the defendant who weighed 438 pounds, and he was found to have a gun partly under the seat and the ammunition therefor in his pocket. It is interesting to note that in sentencing the defendant for a Class A misdemeanor, the trial court observed that the defendant could have been charged with and sentenced for a Class 3 felony under section 24 \u2014 1(b) of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 24 \u2014 1(b)), since he committed the instant offense within five years of his release from the penitentiary. At the time he was arrested the defendant stated that he had purchased the gun from a woman in Rock Falls, Illinois. However, at the trial, he testified that the gun belonged to one of the other eight occupants of the car and that he was covering up for the owner of the gun. It is also to be noted that all eight of the other occupants of the car at the time of trial were incarcerated either in the penitentiary or the State farm at Vandalia.\nThis action was begun by the filing of a complaint charging a violation of section 24 \u2014 1 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 24 \u2014 1). In pertinent part section 24 \u2014 1 reads as follows:\n\u201c(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:\nft ft ft\n(4) Carries concealed in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver or other firearm; or\n$ # *\n(10) Carries or possesses in a vehicle or on or about his person within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business, any loaded pistol, revolver or other firearm.\u201d\nThe defendant attacks the complaint for the first time in this appeal as being juris \u00bffictionally void for failure to allege that the pistol was either concealed or loaded. In support of this contention, the defendant has cited People v. Spain (1974), 24 Ill.App.3d 377, 321 N.E.2d 520, and People v. Pujoue (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 810, 320 N.E.2d 78. The Supreme Court allowed the petition of the People for leave to appeal in Pujoue and in September, 1975, reversed the decision of the appellate court; (People v. Pujoue, 61 Ill.2d 335.) The Supreme Court pointed out that the contention of the defendant was that, in the absence of an allegation that the revolver was loaded, no statutory violation was charged. We find that, factually, this case is most similar to the issue presented in Pujoue. The Supreme Court, in reversing the appellate court, stated;\n# \u00bb the sufficiency of a complaint attacked for the first time on appeal must be determined by a different standard, and we do not agree with the appellate court that failure to allege an element of the offense in the complaint, per se, rendered it void.\nWhen attacked for the first time on appeal a complaint is sufficient if it apprised the accused of the precise offense charged with sufficient specificity to prepare his defense and allow pleading a resulting conviction as a bar to future prosecution arising out of the same conduct. People v. Grant, 57 Ill.2d 264; People v. Harvey, 53 Ill.2d 585.\u201d (People v. Pujoue, 61 Ill.2d 335, 339.)\nAs in Pujoue, it is apparent from the record that the defense counsel at the trial treated the complaint as charging a violation of section 24\u2014 1(a) (10). Testimony adduced at trial showed that the gun was, in fact, loaded; and the failure to allege that it was loaded did not prejudice preparation of a defense. Also, as in Pujoue, the complaint herein was sufficient to be pleaded in bar of a future prosecution. It alleged the date and the place of the commission of the offense and also contained a detailed description of the revolver.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSEIDENFELD, P. J., and HALLETT, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE GUILD"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph Ruebner, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "Peter J. Woods, State\u2019s Attorney, of Oregon (Edward Morris, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Boyd, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 74-358;\nSecond District (1st Division) \u2014\nOctober 17, 1975.\nRalph Ruebner, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nPeter J. Woods, State\u2019s Attorney, of Oregon (Edward Morris, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0968-01",
  "first_page_order": 994,
  "last_page_order": 996
}