Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Collins

JUNE 26, 1969.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

SIDNEY J. COLLINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. JACQUES F. HEILINGOETTER, Judge, presiding. Judgment affirmed. MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

The defendant, Sidney J. Collins, after a trial without a jury was found guilty of attempted rape and burglary with intent to commit rape. He was sentenced to terms of five to fourteen years for each offense, said sentences to run concurrently.

Since the only issue presented for review is whether the defendant's jury waiver was understandingly made, there is no need to discuss the facts surrounding the burglary and attempted rape.

At the outset of the trial, the following colloquy took place:

MR. TOOLE: (Counsel for Defendant) "Mr. Collins is ready for trial. He wants to be tried by a bench trial, is that correct, Mr. Collins?"

DEFENDANT COLLINS: "Yes."

THE COURT: "You understand that you have a right to a jury trial?"

DEFENDANT COLLINS: "Yes."

THE COURT: "You are indicating that you are waiving this right, Mr. Collins, you wish to be tried by the Court?"

DEFENDANT COLLINS: "Yes."

THE COURT: "You can indicate that by signing a jury waiver, please."

MR. TOOLE: "Sign that."

(Jury Waiver Signed.)

[1-3] It is well established that an accused's waiver of his right to trial by jury must be "understandingly" made by him in open court. (Ill Rev Stats, 1965, c 38, § 103-6; People v. Richardson, 32 Ill.2d 497, 207 N.E.2d 453.) The defendant argues that the above-quoted colloquy reveals that such a waiver was not understandingly made by him since there was no specific explanation by the trial judge as to the meaning and significance of a jury trial. In so arguing the defendant heavily relies upon the opinion and supplemental opinion in People v. Bell, 104 Ill. App.2d 479, 244 N.E.2d 321, wherein the court held that the defendant was not adequately apprised of his right to a jury trial and as a result he did not understandingly waive such a right. We are of the opinion that the Bell case is readily distinguishable from the case at bar. In Bell when the defendant was asked if he knew what a jury was he replied, "A what?" The Bell court said at page 484 in its supplemental opinion:

"Defendant's questioning answer should have alerted the trial court to the need of an explanation of what a jury trial was and of his entitlement to a jury trial so that defendant could understandingly ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.