Armstong v. People

Citations

• 37 Ill. 459

Syllabus

<p>1. Verdict—in criminal cases—surplusage will not vitiate. In a prosecution of a party for administering drugs to a woman then pregnant with child, with intent to produce a miscarriage, the jury found the defendant guilty, and fixed his term of imprisonment in the penitentiary, “ together with a fine of cne hundred dollars.” The jury were not authorized under the law to fix any fine, yet the attempt thus to do so did not vitiate the verdict; that portion of it was rejected as surplusage.</p> <p>2. Same—general verdict of “guilty.” A general verdict of “guilty,” is sufficient, without specifying of what offence, either by description, by reference to the indictment, or otherwise. It is understood to mean, guilty of the offence charged in the indictment.</p> <p>3. Sahib—upon several, counts. It is no matter how many counts an indictment may contain, a general verdict of guilty, is a finding upon all of them.</p> <p>4. Judgment—imposing afine—adopting an improper verdict Where a court, in entering a judgment upon a verdict in a criminal cause, which found the defendant guilty, and in addition to fixing the term of imprisonment, which it might do, also imposed a fine, which the jury could not do, adopted the verdict entire, it is held, the court having the power to impose the fine, its judgment would be none the less valid because of the adoption of the amount improperly fixed in the verdict.</p>