People ex rel. Staples v. Prude
| Decision Date | 07 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 58645,58645 |
| Citation | 309 N.E.2d 670,18 Ill.App.3d 269 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. Valeria STAPLES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd PRUDE, Defendant-appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gates W. Clancy, James S. Mills, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Donald P. Smith, Asst. State's Atty., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.
This is a paternity case. The defendant, Floyd Prude, appeals from a judgment which found him to be the father of a child born to the plaintiff, Valeria Staples. His contentions are two: the judgment of paternity was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and the trial court violated his right against self-incrimination by ordering him to answer interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff.
Valeria Staples, a divorcee since 1965, testified that she first met Floyd Prude in December 1969, after Christmas. She related that she first had sexual intercourse with him prior to January 1, 1970, in her apartment, and that they continued to meet and have intercourse almost daily from that time until the first week in February. She did not see him afterwards, but telephoned him in May 1970 to inform him that she was pregnant. She explained that her delay in telling him was because she wanted to be certain of her condition. The baby was born November 21, 1970, delivered by Doctor Sidney Lash. It was the uncontested testimony of the plaintiff that the doctor told her the child was about three weeks overdue. She denied engaging in sexual relations with anyone except Prude between December 26, 1969, and February 15, 1970.
On cross-examination, the plaintiff was shown copies of the boby's birth and baptismal certificates, each of which bore different names of the putative father. The birth certificate named 'Herschel Staples' as the father. The plaintiff explained that when she checked into the hospital to deliver the baby she was asked her marital status and responded 'divorced.' She was then asked the name of her ex-husband and replied 'Horatio Staples.' According to her story, the hospital then entered a variation of that name when it later completed the birth certificate, without further questioning her. The baptismal certificate named 'Floyd Staples' as the father. She explained that when she was preparing to have the child baptized she was asked the first name of the father and she answered 'Floyd'; she volunteered nothing further because of her embarrassment over the child's illegitimacy.
Diane Marsalis, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that she knew Floyd Prude, having first met him in January 1970, when he visited her apartment with Valeria Staples, whom she had known many years. She saw them together again in late January or early February, and she spent an evening in their company at a friend's birthday party. She stated that Floyd left the party with Valeria.
Barbara Prude, wife of Floyd Prude, testified that she married the defendant in December 1970 and that in January or February of 1971 Valeria Staples approached her in a cocktail lounge and, in the presence of her husband, told Barbara he was the father of Valeria's child and that she wished payment to help raise the infant. Barbara said she rejected Valeria's claims, despite the latter's threat to make trouble for Floyd by taking him to court if no formal settlement could be worked out.
The only other defense witness was the defendant himself. He admitted his acquaintance with Valeria Staples, but only for the period from September to December 1969. He could not recall the number of times he had intercourse with her in those months, although he believed them to be few. Likewise, he was uncertain of the date of his final visit but was certain that it had been no later than December 15th and was equally positive that he had no intercourse with her in December. He said he did not hear from her again until May 1970, when she telephoned to inform him of her pregnancy, and did not see her again until January 1971 when she confronted him and his wife.
The defendant, in support of his contention that the paternity finding was against the weight of the evidence, alludes to several claimed weaknesses in the State's case: first, there was no medical evidence that the child was delivered three weeks past the normal term of pregnancy; second, the long delay in informing him of the pregnancy and in bringing this action; third, the plaintiff's failure, for a considerable period of time, to name the father...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Toryak v. Spagnuolo, 14939
...347 So.2d 398 (Ala.1977); Huntingdon v. Crowley, 51 Cal.Rptr. 254, 64 Cal.2d 647, 414 P.2d 382 (1966); People ex rel. Staples v. Prude, 18 Ill.App.3d 269, 309 N.E.2d 670 (1974); State v. Stevens, 279 Minn. 390, 157 N.W.2d 52 (1968); Snay v. Snarr, 195 Neb. 375, 238 N.W.2d 234 (1976); State ......
-
People ex rel. Mathis v. Brown
...337.) In a paternity suit the plaintiff's burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence (People ex rel. staples v. Prude (1st Dist. 1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 269, 271, 309 N.E.2d 670; Schultz v. Peeler (5th Dist. 1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 937, 938, 295 N.E.2d 252; People ex rel. Bucaro v. Joh......
-
People ex rel. Temple v. Williams
...is cited and we have not found that such evidence is a necessary element in the action. Here, as in The People ex rel Staples v. Prude (1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 269, 309 N.E.2d 670, hospital and medical records were equally available to defendant but no effort was made to support any relevant a......
-
People ex rel. Raines v. Price
...on a question of fact only if it is clearly convinced that the result is palpably and manifestly erroneous (People ex rel. Staples v. Prude, 18 Ill.App.3d 269, 309 N.E.2d 670). In the case at bar, the witnesses directly contradicted one another. We will not disturb the trial court's resolut......