{
  "id": 2836083,
  "name": "Frank Fitzpatrick v. The People of the State of Illinois",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fitzpatrick v. People",
  "decision_date": "1881-03-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "259",
  "last_page": "260",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 Ill. 259"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5211804
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "314"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/33/0276-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3325,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.456562634589676e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8050865127658022
    },
    "sha256": "2528c79353166e73899c79d0d503fef1082f257287343753ba5e490809a4a055",
    "simhash": "1:96f580806780ac98",
    "word_count": 578
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:25:26.076800+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank Fitzpatrick v. The People of the State of Illinois."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sheldon\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an indictment for malicious mischief, whereon the defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to one year\u2019s imprisonment in the penitentiary.\nHe assigns for error that the record fails to show that he was arraigned on the indictment. The record, after reciting the coming of the defendant in custody of the sheriff, and the disposition of a motion made by his attorney to quash the indictment, proceeds:. \u201cAnd now the defendant being called upon to plead thereto, says that he is not guilty,\u201d etc.\nOur statute (Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 410, sec. 3,) provides: \u201cUpon the arraignment of a prisoner it shall be sufficient, without complying with any other form, to declare orally that he is not guilty, and the mention of the arraignment and such plea shall constitute the issue between the people of the' State and the prisoner.\u201d\nBlackstone says: \u201cTo arraign is nothing else but to call the prisoner to the bar of the court to answer the matter charged upon him in the indictment.\u201d 4 Black. Com. 322. Though he remarks further, that, when brought to the bar, the prisoner is to be called upon by name to hold up his-hand; that then the indictment is to be read to him distinctly in the English tongue, that he may fully understand his charge; after which it is to be demanded of him whether he be guilty of the crime whereof he stands indicted, or not guilty. The ancient formality attending the arraignment of a prisoner is disused in our practice. The statutory requirement of furnishing, the prisoner with a copy of the indictment is a better means of information to him of the charge than the reading of the indictment to him.\nAs the record does not use the technical term \u201carraigned,\u201d it may be said that the record should show that what did take place amounted to an arraignment. We think that it does so show. The mention of the prisoner\u2019s presence in court and that he was called upon to plead to the indictment, shows sufficiently an arraignment under our practice.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sheldon"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Stevenson & Ewing, for the plaintiff in error:",
      "Mr. Robert B. Porter, State\u2019s attorney, for the People:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank Fitzpatrick v. The People of the State of Illinois.\nFiled at Springfield March 21, 1881.\nCriminal law\u2014of the arraignment. The mention in the record of a criminal prosecution, of the prisoner\u2019s presence in court, and that he was called upon t.o plead to the indictment., and pleaded not guilty, shows sufficiently an arraignment, under our practice. The ancient formality is disused in our practice. The furnishing of a copy of the indictment will answer the purpose of reading the same to the defendant.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. Owen T. Reeves, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Stevenson & Ewing, for the plaintiff in error:\nThe judgment must be reversed for the reason the record fails to show that the accused was arraigned on the indictment. Rev. Stat. 1845, p. 300, sec. 3; Bouv. Law Dic. p. 126; Arch. Cr. 1070, and note; Schirmer v. People, 33 Ill. 276 , Johnson v. People, 22 id. 314.\nMr. Robert B. Porter, State\u2019s attorney, for the People:\nAs to what constitutes an arraignment, see Burrill\u2019s Law Dic.; Coke\u2019s Litt. 263a; Bouv. Law Dic.; 1 Archb. 350, side p. 108; Wharton\u2019s Law Dic.\nThe record shows that the defendant was called on to plead and did plead, and that is substantially an arraignment."
  },
  "file_name": "0259-01",
  "first_page_order": 263,
  "last_page_order": 264
}