People v. Andreanos
| Decision Date | 28 October 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 17522.,17522. |
| Citation | 153 N.E. 707,323 Ill. 34 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ANDREANOS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Adams County; Fred G. Wolfe, Judge.
John Andreanos was convicted of statutory rape, and be brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Rolland M. Wagner and Floyd W. Munroe, both of Quincy, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., J. Leroy Adair, State's Atty., Roy D. Johnson, and Mark A. Penick, all of Quincy, for the People.
Plaintiff in error was indicted and tried in the circuit court of Adams county on the charge of statutory rape upon Alice Bragg, of the age of 14 years. The testimony for the people consisted of the story of the complaining witness. Amanda Bragg, the mother of the complaining witness, was apparently a witness before the grand jury, and her name appeared on the indictment; but upon the trial the state's attorney stated that he desired the court to call her as a witness, as he was not willing to vouch for her credibility. The defendant positively denied the charge, and offered the testimony of numerous witnesses as to his good reputation for chastity and good morals.
It appears that Amanda Bragg, the mother of complaining witness, had been employed by the brother of plaintiff in error in a restaurant in Quincy. Plaintiff in error was cook in that restaurant, and the complaining witness came there at various times to see her mother. The testimony of both state and defense shows that on April 14, 1925, plaintiff in error and George Couper were driving about the city of Quincy in an automobile owned by the brother of plaintiff in error, and that the complaining witness and her mother met them and got into the rear seat of the automobile, and the four drove about the city, later going to one of the public parks, known as Riverview Park. The four got out of the car and sat on the grass. The defendant's evidence is that they all sat in a group along the roadside. The complaining witness testified that at that time she and plaintiff in error went behind some bushes, where acts of sexual intercourse took place. In this she is not corroborated by her mother, who testified that all remained together, and plaintiff in error also positively denies her testimony. Another occasion testified to by the complaining witness was at her home, when her mother was away from the house. The mother, however, testified there was but one occasion when she was away from the house while plaintiff in error was there; that, when she left, the complaining witness and plaintiff in error were sitting on the porch, and that when she returned they were still sitting where she left them; that she was gone but about 15 minutes.
The evidence was conflicting, and the jury should have been correctly instructed. The court gave the jury the following instruction:
‘The court instructs the jury that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ricili
...by other witnesses, might be sufficient to justify a conviction. People v. Sciales, 353 Ill. 169, 187 N.E. 169;People v. Andreanos, 323 Ill. 34, 153 N.E. 707. We held in the late case of People v. DeFrates, 395 Ill. 439, 70 N.E.2d 591, that where the testimony of the prosecutrix is clear an......
-
People v. Peters
...v. Burns, 364 Ill. 49, 4 N.E.2d 26;People v. Sciales, 353 Ill. 169, 187 N.E. 169; and Id., 345 Ill. 118, 177 N.E. 689;People v. Andreanos, 323 Ill. 34, 153 N.E. 707. If the testimony as to whether or not the offense was committed is conflicting, it becomes the special province of the jury t......
-
People v. White
... ... Andreanos, 323 Ill. 34, 153 N.E. 707.) If the testimony is not clear and convincing, then corroborative evidence must be produced to support her testimony as against the denial of the defendant. (People v. Scott, 407 Ill. 301, 95 N.E.2d 315; People v. Ritchie, 401 Ill. 542, 82 N.E.2d 344.) In People v ... ...
-
People v. Hendon
... ... White in turn cites People v. Sciales, 345 Ill. 118, 177 N.E. 689 (1931); People v. Freeman, 244 Ill. 590, 91 N.E. 708 (1910) and People v. Andreanos, 323 Ill. 34, 153 N.E. 707 (1926). Each of these cases recites the rule but seems to consider it as an abstract principle. It is worth noting that only in Sciales was the conviction affirmed. Sciales involved the statutory rape of a fifteen year old where defendant denied the intercourse. Just ... ...