{
  "id": 2421868,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Frank Calkins, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Calkins",
  "decision_date": "1920-02-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 13069",
  "first_page": "317",
  "last_page": "318",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "291 Ill. 317"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 2872,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.155461896083572e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38250396065562126
    },
    "sha256": "f9084bcc19ea09e78c0df81dfd8c56b41a0826c633c5efd5f3415e77b954cc5a",
    "simhash": "1:86b5c9e6a4b6d8b9",
    "word_count": 487
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:19.586627+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, vs. Frank Calkins, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Dunn\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff in error, Frank Calkins, was charged in an indictment with doing certain acts which directly tended to render a certain female child of the age of sixteen years delinquent by ravishing and carnally knowing her. His plea was not guilty, and upon a trial he was found guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment. His motion in arrest of judgment was overruled and he was sentenced to two months\u2019 imprisonment in the house of correction at labor. He has sued out a writ of error, and alleges that the statute under which he was tried is unconstitutional, and that \u201cthe statute, indictment, verdict, judgment and sentence * * * deprive him of the protection of the constitution, of the law of the land and of due process of law.\u201d\nThe only provisions of the constitution mentioned in the argument are sections 2 and 10 of article 2, neither of which has the slightest application to the case. While it is said that this statute (Laws of 1915, p. 369,) is manifestly contrary to the constitution, contrary to the law of the land and contrary to due process of law, no attempt has been made to show us wherein the inconsistency consists and our unaided efforts have not enabled us to discover the inconsistency. We are therefore forced to the conclusion that no question of the construction of the constitution is involved in the case, for the mere averment that such question is involved is of no importance where the record shows that no such question is involved, that the proposition presented is not fairly open to controversy.\nThe Practice act provides (sec. 118) that writs of error in criminal cases below the grade of felony shall issue from-the Appellate Court but in all cases in which the validity of a statute or a construction of the constitution is involved shall issue from the Supreme Court. The writ of error should have been sued out of the Appellate Court for the First District, which has jurisdiction to review the judgment, and the cause will be transferred to that court.\nCause transferred.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Dunn"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James Hartnett, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, Maclay HoynE, State\u2019s Attorney, and Edward C. Fitch, (Edward E. Wilson, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 13069.\nCause transferred.)\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Frank Calkins, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed February 18, 1920.\nCriminal law- \u2014 mere averment that constitutional question is involved does not authorize \u2022direct review of conviction for misdemeanor. A mere averment in the brief that the statute under which a person is convicted of a crime below the grade of felony is unconstitutional does not justify a direct review of the judgment by the Supreme Court.\nWrit oe Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. Robert E. Crowe, Judge, presiding.\nJames Hartnett, for plaintiff in error.\nEdward J. Brundage, Attorney General, Maclay HoynE, State\u2019s Attorney, and Edward C. Fitch, (Edward E. Wilson, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0317-01",
  "first_page_order": 317,
  "last_page_order": 318
}