Newman v. People

• Decision Date: 23 October 1906
• Citation: 79 N.E. 80,223 Ill. 324
• Parties: NEWMAN v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

223 Ill. 324

79 N.E. 80

NEWMAN

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 23, 1906.

Error to City Court of Alton; J. E. Dunnegan, Judge.

James Newman was convicted of an assault with intent to commit rape, and brings error. Reversed.John J. Brenholt, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Woodward, and J. F. Gillham, State's Atty., for the People.

FARMER, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the city court of Alton for an assault with intent to commit rape and sentenced to the penitentiary.

Plaintiff in error was, and had been for several years prior to his conviction, labor agent of the Illinois Glass Company. It was his duty to hire unskilled labor for said company's plant at the city of Alton. A short time prior to the alleged offense he was informed by Mrs. Murphy, who was employed as a domestic in the house of Mrs. Botts, that she had met the prosecuting witness, Juanita Dowdall, in Carrollton a short time before, and that said Juanita Dowdall desired to get employment at the glass works. Plaintiff in error told Mrs. Murphy to inform the girl if she came he could probably get her employment, and Mrs. Murphy wrote her to that effect. Afterwards Mrs. Murphy received a letter from the prosecutrix that she would come to Alton on the evening of the 17th day of December, 1905, and requested Mrs. Murphy to meet her at the depot, which she did. As the two women were leaving the depot they met the plaintiff in error, and Mrs. Murphy introduced him to the prosecutrix. Mrs. Murphy inquired of plaintiff in error about a boarding house for prosecutrix, and he accompanied them to the house of William Kerfis. A room and bed were procured for the prosecutrix at that place, and at her request Mrs. Murphy stayed with her there all night. Plaintiff in error did not board at the Kerfis house, and it is not claimed he did anythingimproper at the time he accompanied the two women to the boarding house. The next night, which was December 18th, the prosecutrix stayed all night with Mrs. Murphy at the house of Mrs. Botts, where Mrs. Murphy was employed. On the following day she returned to the Kerfis house. She testified that in the afternoon plaintiff in error visited her at her room, and this is the occasion when it is claimed the offense was committed. The prosecutrix testified plaintiff in error sat on the bed by her and asked her if she didn't want to be his sweetheart; that she told him, ‘No,’ and he asked her if she would like to be his friend; that she told him she would, and in reply to some vulgar language from him she said she would not do anything indecent for anybody's friendship. She testified he then ‘took his coat off, and laid his left arm around my shoulder, then threw me back. First he got up and let the window shade down. I says: ‘I thank you, I will not have that.’ He put me back there, and rubbed up against me. Then he put his arm around me, and pulled me back on the bed, and reached for my feet. I immediately told him I would call help, and he says: ‘Of course, I can do nothing against your will.’ Nevertheless he tried. and made the utmost use of his hands which would be called ‘force.” The evidence shows there were a number of persons in the house at the time, and no outcry was made by the prosecutrix, nor did she tell any one of the alleged assault, nor make any complaint against plaintiff in error for more than two months, when she caused his indictment by the grand jury in the city court. Plaintiff in error denied ever visiting the prosecutrix or being in her room, and the testimony of two other witnesses corroborated his denial of being in her room at the time and on the occasion she says the assault occurred.

But, taking the testimony of the prosecuting witness alone, it would not establish the guilt of the plaintiff in error of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. To warrant a conviction for an assault with intent to commit rape the proof must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, every ingredient of the crime of rape except the accomplishment of that crime. ‘The proof must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, the unlawful attempt which constitutes an assault with an intention to have carnal knowledge of the female forcibly and against...