People v. Anderson

Decision Date20 June 1974
Docket NumberNos. 58288,58831,s. 58288
Citation314 N.E.2d 651,20 Ill.App.3d 840
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold ANDERSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant; Ian Levin, Chicago, of counsel.

Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Kenneth L. Giles, Jerald A. Kessler, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.

MEJDA, Justice.

Following a bench trial, defendant, Harold Anderson, Jr., was found guilty of the offenses of rape, deviate sexual assault, and robbery. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 38, pars. 11--1(a), 11--3, 18--1.) He was sentenced to the State penitentiary for each offense for a term of five to twelve years, to run concurrently. Defendant appeals. He contends that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses of rape, deviate sexual assault, and robbery. The State concedes the interdependence of the evidence to support all three charges. The facts follow.

Complainant was 18 years of age at the time of the incidents herein and testified at trial to the following. At approximately 5:00 P.M., on October 3, 1970, she was walking alone in a southerly direction on the east side of Wells Street in the Old Town area of Chicago, where she had come with the intention of buying a purse. It was daylight, and she had passed many pedestrians. She noticed that there was heavy automobile traffic moving in both directions along Wells Street. Near the intersection of Wells and Goethe Streets a young black man--later identified by her as the defendant--approached her from the rear. He put his right arm around her right shoulder, placed his left hand to her left side, and said, 'Do as I say or I'm going to shoot. I have a gun.' She stated that she felt something hard against her left side. She tried to scream and defendant put his hand over her mouth, choking her, and forced her diagonally into the intersection, toward the southwest corner. At one point, while crossing the intersection, defendant tried to push her in front of a car, and near the center of Wells Street she tried unsuccessfully to squat down to attract attention. Defendant forced her onto the curb but she struggled back down into the street. He pulled her up onto the curb again and she grabbed a sign pole. Defendant pulled her loose and forced her toward the west entrance of the corner apartment building. When they reached the entrance he began conversing amicably with another black man standing outside the doorway. She did not understand their conversation and she said nothing. While they talked she held on to the entrance doorframe.

The defendant then pushed her through the doorway and she grabbed the stair banister. She pleaded with the defendant and asked him why he was doing this to her. He said he only wanted to talk with her but wanted to talk upstairs. He began forcing her up toward the second floor and she attempted to cry out, but he struck her on the face and head and choked her. On the second floor he took her into a washroom and removed her coat and laid it on the floor. They heard voices in the hall and defendant placed his hand over her mouth and said, 'Be quiet. Don't make a sound.' She put her coat on and they left the washroom. Again, in the hallway, she attempted to run down the stairs, but defendant caught her and hit her in the face, then forced her up the stairs and into a washroom on the third floor.

Complainant further testified that in the washroom, defendant removed her coat and laid it on the floor, then pulled her pants down. After forcing her to lie down on her coat, defendant removed his pants and underwear and pulled her underwear half off. He removed a sanitary napkin she was wearing, threw it into the toilet, then penetrated her vagina with his penis. He could achieve only partial penetration and she told him she was a virgin. Defendant told her to sit on him on the toilet for the next few minutes. Then he demanded money and took six dollars from her purse. Afterwards they both dressed, and defendant, holding her hands behind her back, forced her down the hallway to still another washroom on the third floor. On the way, they passed a black man and complainant grimaced and made a low groan, but did not cry out to him.

Inside the third washroom, defendant again removed her coat, undressed her, and forced her to lie down on her coat. He then undressed and forced her to perform an act of fellatio. Subsequently, defendant engaged in two more acts of intercourse with complainant. After the second of these acts she reached down and touched her vaginal area and discovered that she was bleeding; she then wiped her hand clean on the bathtub in the third washroom. After they had dressed, defendant took complainant's watch and ordered her to stay in the washroom until he returned. She did not try to leave, but remained there for five or ten minutes until defendant returned. While alone in the washroom she heard voices in the hallway. Defendant returned with another black man and requested that she give him a 'hand job.' She refused, and the three of them left the washroom. In the hallway defendant grabbed complainant, kissed her, and said, 'Goodbye, nice knowing you.' She then ran down the stairs and out on Wells Street, where she saw two policemen standing within slight of the building she had left. She informed them of what had happened and was taken to Henrotin Hospital where she was given a medical examination. Thereafter, she gave the police a detailed description of defendant and of his clothing.

Complainant did not tell her parents she had been raped until the next day after the police had requested that she go to the station to view a lineup. In the lineup she identified defendant as the person who had attacked her.

On cross-examination complainant further testified. She had been in the Old Town area only once before, some four years prior to the occurrence in question. There were no other pedestrians within the block where she was first accosted by defendant. She did not yell for help during the struggle across the intersection because she was afraid of defendant's gun. However, she admitted that she never saw a gun during the entire incident; that she could not tell the difference between a gun and a finger being pushed into her side; and that during the crossing and afterwards she saw the defendant no longer had anything in this hands. Complainant also admitted asking defendant whether he was from Texas, and if he was a Baptist. She told him she had a friend who knew a lot about blacks and that as a result she also knew something about them. She characterized this conversation as an attempt to get his mind off whatever he was planning. When asked why she made no outcry for help from the man at the apartment building entrance or the man they passed in the third floor hallway, complainant said that both of the men were black, both seemed to know the defendant, and she believed that neither of them would help her. She stated she had been a virgin prior to the occurrence and that although she was wearing a sanitary napkin she was not then having her menstrual period. She also admitted that she suggested anal intercourse when defendant could not achieve full penetration in the second washroom; that she just wanted to get it done with and get out of there.

James Leyden, a patrolman of the Chicago Police Department, testified that he arrived at Henrotin Hospital on October 3, 1970, in response to a police radio report that a rape victim had been brought there. He interviewed the complainant and took down a detailed description of her assailant. He stated that her clothing was a little dirty, her face was red, and she had a bruise under one eye and a scratch on her neck. Leyden and his partner accompanied complainant back to the building where the alleged attacks occurred. They inspected the three washrooms which complainant said she and a her assailant had occupied. Leyden made no mention of finding a sanitary napkin in the toilet in the second washroom, nor of observing any blood on the bathtub in the third washroom. He stated that he could not recall whether any inquiries were made of residents of the building to determine what they might have seen or heard. He further stated that he arrested defendant later that same evening in Old Town, and that defendant and his clothing fit the complainant's description perfectly. He stated that while checking defendant's clothing he noticed a reddish stain on the fly of his undershorts.

Judy Murakami, a licensed practical nurse, testified that she was assigned to the emergency room of Henrotin Hospital on October 3, 1970. She stated that a report indicated that complainant had said her last previous menstrual period was in the beginning of September 1970. The report also indicated that complainant had scratch marks on the left side of her neck.

Dr. William Whiteside testified that he was the physician who conducted the emergency room examination of complainant at Henrotin Hospital; that the report indicated that abrasions an contusions were found on complainant's left cheek and forehead, and an abrasion was found on the left side of her neck. No evidence of trauma or injury to the vaginal area was found. Vaginal bleeding was evident, but since there was an absence of vaginal injury, he stated this would lead to the assumption that the bleeding was the result of normal menstruation or some other form of internal discharge. He further testified that he could not give an opinion as to whether complainant had been forcibly raped, but that at the time of her examination she was not in shock and her general condition was listed in the report as good.

A portion of defendant's undershorts and the pap smears taken at the time of complainant's emergency room examination were introduced into evidence....

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Walden v. City of Chicago, No. 04 C 0047.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • April 25, 2005
    ...testimony of a rape victim is sufficient under Illinois law to support a rape conviction." Id. n. 3 (citing People v. Anderson, 20 Ill.App.3d 840, 314 N.E.2d 651 (1974)). The question of whether an attack on the legality of the arrest would in effect challenge the legitimacy of the convicti......
  • People v. Phillips
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 10, 1989
    ...68 Ill.Dec. 685, 446 N.E.2d 591; People v. Rosario (1982), 110 Ill.App.3d 1020, 66 Ill.Dec. 590, 443 N.E.2d 273; People v. Anderson (1974), 20 Ill.App.3d 840, 314 N.E.2d 651; People v. Taylor (1970), 121 Ill.App.2d 403, 257 N.E.2d 524; and People v. Kepler (1966), 76 Ill.App.2d 135, 221 N.E......
  • People v. Dick, 83-2989
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 27, 1987
    ...act was against her will." In reversing the defendant's conviction for rape following a bench trial, in People v. Anderson (1974), 20 Ill.App.3d 840, 847-48, 850-51, 314 N.E.2d 651, the following language and holding of this court is most applicable to and binding upon the case at "Defendan......
  • People v. Mahaffey
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1989
    ...18 Ill.2d 439, 164 N.E.2d 36; People v. Kokoraleis (1986), 149 Ill.App.3d 1000, 103 Ill.Dec. 186, 501 N.E.2d 207; People v. Anderson (1974), 20 Ill.App.3d 840, 314 N.E.2d 651. All are inapposite. Two of the cases to which Jerry cites deal not with proving the corpus delicti of rape, but wit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT