Gifford v. People of State

• Decision Date: 30 September 1877
• Citation: 87 Ill. 210,1877 WL 9840
• Parties: STEPHEN GIFFORDv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

87 Ill. 210

1877 WL 9840 (Ill.)

STEPHEN GIFFORD

v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1877.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Kane county; the Hon. HIRAM H. CODY, Judge, presiding.

Mr. T. C. MOORE, and Mr. F. G. GARFIELD, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is a writ of error to the circuit court of Kane county, on a judgment convicting Stephen Gifford of the crime of rape.

The fact of sexual intercourse between the defendant and the prosecutrix, at the alleged time and place, is not in dispute. The sole controversy is whether that intercourse was without the consent and against the will of the prosecutrix.

The immaturity of the age of the prosecutrix and the advanced age of the defendant--she being only thirteen and he past sixty years of age--we have no doubt very greatly, and perhaps, to some extent, it may be said, not improperly, prejudiced the minds of the jury against the defendant. Still, this ought not to have been allowed to blind their eyes to material facts clearly proved, nor to cloud their judgments as to the proper conclusions to be drawn from those facts.

The prosecutrix testified that the intercourse was without her consent and against her will. The defendant testified that she fully consented to it.

The intercourse took place in the house of one Ravatte, with whom both parties were then domiciled--he temporarily, and she permanently as a domestic employee. The hour was between two and three o'clock in the afternoon, and, although Ravatte and his wife were then absent at Aurora, there was a young man named Nelson, eighteen years of age, in the employ of Ravatte as a common laborer, who was at or near the house, and within easy hailing distance, throughout the entire afternoon.

Nelson testifies that he was occupied, the greater portion of the afternoon, sawing wood at the wood-pile, though he was, at one time, at the hog-pen, and, at another time, at the stable. The wood-pile, he says, was twenty-two steps from the house, the hog-pen twice and the stable three times that distance. He says he was in the front room of the house three or four times during the afternoon, and, when he would go in there, the prosecutrix and the defendant would go into the kitchen; that once, when he saw them sitting in the front room, he thought he would go in and sit with them, but the prosecutrix got up and attempted to shut the door. He heard no outcry, witnessed no weeping or evidence of distress or ill usage, but, on the contrary, testifies to several circumstances, unnecessary to be repeated, showing that the prosecutrix, instead of trying to avoid the defendant, seemed well contented in his society throughout the afternoon and evening.

The prosecutrix says she had never menstruated and had never had sexual intercourse with a man before. In this view, it severely taxes credulity that sexual intercourse by force and against her will, produced no wounding or laceration of the private parts, and was followed by no hemorrhage nor subsequent pain or ill-health. She makes no pretense that any of these results followed; and Mrs. Ravatte testifies that, on her return home in the evening, she discovered nothing in the appearance or conduct of the prosecutrix to excite her attention, and that she subsequently examined her linen “and found no evidence of any stains.”

The first complaint the prosecutrix made against the defendant was on Christmas, four days after the alleged offense was committed, and this was in response to a charge of improper conduct between her and the defendant, made by Ravatte. This is what she says on that point: “I first told of this on Christmas; Mr. Ravatte first spoke about it; they asked me where I got my presents; I told them; they accused me with improper...