*1 Because the to numbered paragraphs complaint. in his briefs factual mentions which dispute plaintiff we Cartenos, the date the death relates to of Lillian fact. issue of have assumed that this was only disputed “admissions” More the abstract omits word important, from, the order from the introductory appealed portion haec verba. of that order set forth body although if it had been Plaintiff has the case as disposed argued makes from under section the order 48, although appealed it clear that this is not the case. the meticulous
The is-not question here, however, regu- or not but whether larity proceedings, prejudicial error the record before us occurred. prejudicial Upon error does not appear. is therefore affirmed.
The order of the court superior
Order affirmed. (No. 32501. People Defendant Er Illinois, the State vs.
ror, Plaintiff Error. Shamery, William
Opinion May 20, filed 1953. *2 pro Shamery,
William se. of Elliott, Attorney General, A. Springfield, Ivan T. Attorney, Chicago, (John State’s GutknechT, John Rudolph and Arthur Manning, L. Gallagher, Janega, all of for the counsel,) Chicago, People. Hershey delivered the
Mr. opinion Justice court: hereinafter called was defendant, error, plaintiff
indicted in the criminal court of for unlaw- County, Cook called cannabis mari- ful of a narcotic .drug, possession the first of counts, The indictment consisted of two juana. defendant with unlawful which possession charged second, to the and the addi- contrary statute, the drug him also set tion to with unlawful possession, charging in the that he had been convicted municipal forth previously on an information court of on January 19, 1937, Chicаgo him with the unlawful of narcotic possession drugs charging and had in violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, in the House been sentenced to confinement of Correction a for days. pеriod 90 in the
After the indictment was returned instant case, and the defendant court, a trial was had before was the second count of said indictment. convicted on Motions trial and in arrest of filed and for new were over- a motion to release the defendant as also was on ruled, the defendant was Thereupon probation. sentenced to the
379 less than a term of not for Penitentiary Illinois State more than 20 years. nor years Narcotic Rev. Act, (Ill. 1951,
The Uniform Drug Stat. in this the indictment which 38, 192.23,) upon par. chap. the act that whoever violates based, was provides fоr shall be fined of narcotic drugs the unlawful possession for the first offense more than or be imprisoned not $5000 act both. The nor years not less than one more than 5 vio offense the further that for any subsequent term lator shall be in the imprisoned penitentiary from two life. It the further years to contains provision: offense under this Act shall be deemed “Any if offense the violator shall have bеen convicted of a felony law the United of America, or of any or of the District of Columbia drugs.”
Defendant contends that his conviction municipal court in was not for and as a consеquence *3 his conviction by the criminal court in be cannot deemed conviction for a “subsequent” offense within the of the meaning act. he Therefore, the trial court argues, him upon in finding thе instant case was in guilty limited it punishment that could him to thct impose upon pro- vided the act for a-first offender, wit, fine of not more than or for a imprisonment of not less period $5000 than nor one more than five both, or and years, that court was in error when it a sentence him of on imposed not less than and more years not than 20 in this years 15 case.
Defendant contends that the statute in is crim question inal or and penal is consequence strictly thereof to be construed in favor and accused is to be taken nothing by intendment or him literal implication beyond the against and obvious of the statute. meaning (People Lund, v. 382 213.) Ill. The case cited also states that the rules toas strict or liberal as construction are value assisting the real there is no and finding statute, mеaning
need of construction to ascertain the of a statute meaning is the in where clear and language unambiguous tention of the is manifestly law-making power apparent therefrоm. A statute itself affords the best means of its and if the intent can be ascertained exposition, legislative from its that intent resort will without provisions, prevail to other aids for Continental Peoрle ing construction. v. Bank, Nat. Ill. Ill. 454.
It is here to resort to extrinsic aids entirely unnecessary in order clearly to construe this statute. Its is meaning evident from the The unlawful language employed. pos sеssion of narcotic a criminal offense made drugs thereby a fine of not than punishable by more $5000, imprison ment for a not less than one and not more period year than five for the first offеnse. For sub years, both, any sequent the violator shall be imprisoned peni tentiary term from two any to life. first years offense is not a felony, (Ill. Rev. 1951, chap. 38, Stat. nor does par. the statute it to be require so. 585,) The defendant directs attention to the latter part statute which that offense under this act shall be deemed a offense if the shall have subsequent violator been conviсted of a any law of the United of America or of or of the District of Columbia relating He that before the of the statute argues provision offenses have the first offense may apрlication, must be a necessarily His contention is felony. wholly with- out merit. The of the statute is clear that the language part thereof to which our attention is directed defendant relates to an offender who, the Illinois previous violating *4 had been convicted of a act, law of the felony any United America any of or or the Territory States State District of Columbia The lаn- relating and the of each guage employed word, clause, arrangement the the of very para- indicates that purpose and paragraph the of pro- in is the question application graph permit offenses subsequent vision relating punishment of narcotic law had violated a drug those who previously render and to the entities, aforementioned govеrnmental so Illinois haven for those previously no a longer persons This deter- convicted this jurisdiction outside the of State. it the act as mination is an of substantiated by inspection At that time thе existed amendment before the of 1951. first offense in misdemeanor Illinois was denominated a and a subject offense rendered a violator thereof to a the term. same remains true under prison thing act as amended in further but with the 1951, provision to offenders who have been convicted under the felony narcotic laws of the United drug America, or of the District of Columbia. The first if committed in Illinois, could not be a and the subsequent offense provision could never if defendant’s operate construction were true. It is clear, that no conflict arises however, from provisions the statute as above. interpreted Therefore, sentence the defendant imposed upon was and the proper criminal court of Cook County , is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Mаxweee, dissenting: Justice amI constrained to dissent from the majority opinion of the court. It evident from a appears reading section of the statute involved that it is highly penal nature and that the rule announced court in People v. Byrnes, Ill. at should 103, held page 107, We apply. Byrnes that a statute which authorizes the im of a more position severe punishment highly penal should not be to cases which do applied strictest not, by come under construction, its The last provisions. paragraph statutory section question, defining subsequent *5 that the violator shall have bеen convicted of a the law of United or of the America, any State District of territory Columbia The majority opinion seems to hold that the term state” means “any any State other than the State of This conclusion can only Illinois. be reached by and not strict construction. implication If the had such an legislature then it became in- intent, cumbent it to that intent unmis- upon express сlearly This it failed takably. and it is as do, therefore just reasonable to assume and that the to imply legislature state” meant all referring “any the union, forty-eight including Illinois.
By the latter construction the statute placing we upon are then able to of this statute support validity against constitutional attack. If the ex- majority fully opinion tended, effect of this will be declare this holding statutе violator discriminatory. A of the narcotic laws of another must have clearly State been convicted of a felony in that before he State can be under the punished aggra- vаted clause in penalty this for a violation within our boundaries. this However, would not be true for a who committed person two narcotic law misdemeanor violations I am unable State. tо see any justification in such a classification and if it can be placed upon basis lines the moral aim and geographical apparent of our purpose statute is of little force. I fear that the majority would opinion construction place stat- upon ute that would be in contravention of the equal-protection clause of section 1 of thе fourteenth amendment to the con- stitution of the United States. of the lower court should have been reversed and remanded the im- of the lesser as position for in the penalty statute provided involved.