{
  "id": 2783653,
  "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Henry Pearman, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Pearman",
  "decision_date": "1912-04-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,693",
  "first_page": "543",
  "last_page": "546",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "169 Ill. App. 543"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "157 Ill. 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3139733
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/157/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 U. S. 396",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        8298891
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/151/0396-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 Ill. 144",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3234987
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/188/0144-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4350,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.412136576302325
    },
    "sha256": "cc17715daf43372375806bfd4a5c99e2e3fd5f28e18c47487f1ef973d6d4eade",
    "simhash": "1:9e738c30f90b90d8",
    "word_count": 748
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:27:11.843184+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Henry Pearman, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baldwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis writ of error challenges the sufficiency of a judgment imposing a punishment of eight months in the House of Correction. A determination of the question involved necessitates an examination of the whole record.\nIt appears that on the 3rd day of January, 1910, a criminal information, consisting of one count, was filed against plaintiff in error, charging that on January 1, 1910, in the county of Cook and state of Illinois, he \u201cdid then and there, with a certain instrument, commonly called a revolver, said revolver being a dangerous and deadly weapon, without any considerable provocation whatever, and under circumstances showing an abandoned and malignant heart, unlawfully, wilfully and maliciously make an assault in and upon one John A. Rivers, with intent then and there to inflict upon the person of said John A. Rivers, a bodily injury,\u201d etc.\nOn the same day Pearman signed and filed a written waiver of a jury trial. Subsequently and on April 14, 1910, he pleaded not guilty. A trial was then had before the court, without a jury, and the order of court recites that the court \u201cfinds the defendant guilty, in manner and form as charged in the information herein.\u201d\nIn the judgment order it is recited \u201cthat said defendant, Henry Pearman, is guilty of the criminal offense of assault with a deadly weapon with an intent to inflict a bodily injury, on said finding of guilty.\u201d\nIt is conceded that the information is sufficient, and other proceedings are regular, but we are asked to reverse the judgment and sentence because the recitals in the judgment order fail to include the words, \u201cwhere no considerable provocation appears, or the circumstances of the assault show an abandoned and malignant heart.\u201d\nIt has long been the law that in criminal, as well as in civil cases, all parts of the record are to be interpreted together so as to give effect to all, and an apparent deficiency in one place may be supplied by what appears in another. The People v. Murphy, 188 Ill. 144; Pointer v. United States, 151 U. S. 396.\nIndeed, in cases cited by plaintiff in error, it is said: \u201cA verdict must be responsive to the issue and must contain, either in itself or by reference to the indictent, every material fact constituting the crime.\u201d Hix v. People, 157 Ill. 382.\nIn the case at bar the one count of the information concededly charged the offense in apt language. Upon Pearman\u2019s plea of not guilty being entered, an issue was formed and upon this issue the court, having heard the evidence, \u201cfinds the defendant guilty, in manner and form as charged in the information herein.\u201d * * * \u2022By reference to the information, which consisted of only one count, \u201cevery material fact constituting the crime\u201d as required in Hix v. People, supra, was made certain.\nThe other cases cited by counsel for plaintiff in error are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.\nIt is not contended here that plaintiff in error is innocent of the crime charged, nor that the sentence of the court was excessive,\u2014nor that he has been denied any substantial right. Even if it were technical error (which we do not concede), that the state failed to see to it that the judgment order recited all the particulars of the offense charged when they already are fully and accurately disclosed by the record, it is such error as has not resulted in any injury to the plaintiff in error.\nThe judgment of the court below will he affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baldwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. G. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John E. W. Wayman, for defendant in error; Zach Hofheimer, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Henry Pearman, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 16,693.\n1. Criminal law\u2014how record of conviction to he construed. In criminal as well as in civil eases all parts of the record are to be interpreted together so as to give effect to all, and an apparent deficiency in one place may be supplied by what appears in another.\n2. Assault\u2014when judgment of conviction sufficient. Seld, under the record that the judgment of conviction in this ease was sufficient when the entire record was considered.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea Wells, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 19, 1912.\nW. G. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn E. W. Wayman, for defendant in error; Zach Hofheimer, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0543-01",
  "first_page_order": 561,
  "last_page_order": 564
}