{ "id": 5533871, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Kamm, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Kamm", "decision_date": "1926-10-05", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 30,858", "first_page": "14", "last_page": "16", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "242 Ill. App. 14" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "236 Ill. 144", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3383521 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/236/0144-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 Ill. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5539780 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/173/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 Ill. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5412506 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/128/0585-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 234, "char_count": 4020, "ocr_confidence": 0.521, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.16106672628404203 }, "sha256": "d4a14387c90db2510db2db3c0b15be67322ca68c03ebf6905e728ded3391bac1", "simhash": "1:9923957d4b7d3e5b", "word_count": 687 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:47.619316+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Kamm, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis writ brings up for review the conviction of plaintiff in error of \u201cattempted petit larceny, value of property $14 upon the indictment.\u201d\nThe indictment charges plaintiff in error with attempted burglary as defined in section 37 of our Criminal Code [Cahill\u2019s St. ch. 38, [[66]. The intent necessary to the commission of that offense as specified in the indictment is to steal, etc., the personal goods, etc., of a certain corporation. There is no allegation therein of the value of the goods.\nUpon the assumption that the crime thus charged includes the misdemeanor of which plaintiff in error was convicted, the court, as recited in the judgment order, permitted a waiver of the felony by the state\u2019s attorney, and a waiver of jury by plaintiff in error. The cause was then submitted for trial without a jury on the plea of \u201cattempted petit larceny,\u201d resulting in the conviction, as aforesaid.\nBut the indictment charges the single offense of attempted burglary, which being a felony under the statute cannot be tried on a plea of not guilty without a jury. (Harris v. People, 128 Ill. 585.) Even if the act described includes an attempt to steal, without an allegation of. the value of the property there would be no valid charge of such an offense. An indictment for larceny is not valid without an allegation of the value of the property stolen (Brown v. People, 173 Ill. 34, and People v. Silbertrust, 236 Ill. 144), and as an indictment for an attempted crime must adequately describe the crime attempted, an allegation of value would also seem requisite to a valid charge of attempted larceny.\nBut while value is an essential element of larceny, committed or attempted, it is not an element of burglary or attempted burglary. Nor is larceny a necessary element of burglary. It is only one of various objects of burglary that may characterize the intent necessary to' a commission of the offense. It is the breaking and entering the building with intent to steal and not the attempt to steal that is the essential element of the offense here charged. The theory that from that intent there may be inferred an intention to steal something of value will not justify a conviction without an allegation of value.\nCases cited by counsel for the People where there was an express charge of a lesser offense, either in the same count or another count of the indictment, or where from the very nature of the offense the charge thereof necessarily includes a minor one, are not in point.\nThe crime charged being a felony, and the indictment not including the offense of which plaintiff in error was convicted, and trial having been had without a jury, the judgment is void and must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for a legal disposition of the case.\nReversed and remcmded.\n(triplet, P. J., and Fitch, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes" } ], "attorneys": [ "Eugene McCaffrey, for plaintiff in error.", "Egbert E. Crowe, State\u2019s Attorney, Edward E. Wilson and Clarence E. Nelson, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Kamm, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 30,858.\nCriminal procedure \u2014 indictment for attempted burglary loith intent to steal goods, etc., value not alleged, as basis for conviction of attempted larceny of goods of certain value\u201e A conviction of attempted petit larceny of property of the value of $14 is void where resulting from a trial without a jury upon a plea of not guilty to an indictment charging attempted burglary as defined in Cahill\u2019s St. ch. 38, f 66, with iiitent to steal goods, etc., but containing no allegation as to the value of such goods, notwithstanding the defendant waived a jury following the waiver by the People of the felony charge.\nError by defendant to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. Walter P. Steffen, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1926.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1926.\nEugene McCaffrey, for plaintiff in error.\nEgbert E. Crowe, State\u2019s Attorney, Edward E. Wilson and Clarence E. Nelson, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0014-01", "first_page_order": 48, "last_page_order": 50 }