People v. Bendig
Decision Date | 29 January 1968 |
Docket Number | Gen. No. 51375 |
Citation | 91 Ill.App.2d 337,235 N.E.2d 284 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard E. BENDIG, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gerald W. Getty, Chicago, for defendant-appellant, Shelvin Singer, James J. Doherty, Chicago, of counsel.
Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee, Elmer C. Kissane, Saul A Perdomo, Chicago, of counsel.
Defendant was indicted for the crime of deviate sexual assault in violation of Chapter 38, Section 11--3 of the Illinois Revised Statutes, 1963. A plea of not guilty was entered and trial by jury was waived. He was found guilty and sentenced to the Illinois State Penitentiary for not less than one, nor more than five years.
On this appeal, defendant argues that he was not proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt and that there is a fatal variance between the charge in the indictment and the evidence.
The State's evidence consisted of the testimony of the prosecutrix and the stipulated testimony of the doctor who examined her one day after the alleged incident. The nature of the facts in this case are of such a distasteful and degenerate character that we do not feel any purpose will be served by recounting them. This court has carefully scrutinized the entire record and assiduously reviewed the testimony of the prosecutrix. Suffice it to say that the prosecutrix met the defendant by prearrangement. They proceeded to his apartment where, by the use of force the defendant, who was a strong, husky young man, overcame the prosecutrix who was a rather small 20 year old girl. By holding her arms down and sitting on her, he inserted his penis into her mouth.
We cannot say that the conclusion of the trial judge in finding defendant guilty was against the manifest weight of the evidence. As the Supreme Court stated in People v. Finley, 22 Ill.2d 525, 177 N.E.2d 149 (1961):
Defendant's argument that the prosecutrix showed no desire to resist is without merit. As the Illinois Supreme Court said in People v. Smith, 32 Ill.2d 88, 203, N.E.2d 879 (1965):
As each case must be considered on its own facts, so must the degree of resistance required of each victim be judged. The evidence convinces us that the defendant was proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of the crime of deviate sexual assault.
The defendant next argues that there is a material variance between the indictment and the evidence. The indictment states that defendant 'committed the offense of deviate sexual assault, in that, he, knowingly by force and by threat of force, compelled one _ _ to submit to an act of oral copulation, in violation of chapter 38, Section 11--3 of the Illinois Revised Statutes 1963.'
Section 11--3 of the Criminal Code provides:
'Any person * * * who, by force or threat of force, compels any other person to perform or submit to any act of deviate sexual conduct commits deviate sexual assault.'
Defendant contends that the Code contemplates two general alternative categories of behavior, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Cukojevic, 80-2258
...of resistance required of a victim of deviate sexual assault, each case must be considered on its own facts. (People v. Bendig (1968), 91 Ill.App.2d 337, 235 N.E.2d 284.) Useless or foolhardy resistance is not necessary. (People v. Green (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 289, 347 N.E.2d 224; People v. ......
-
People v. Walsh
...resistance required of each victim of deviate sexual assault, each case must be considered on its own facts. (People v. Bendig (1st Dist. 1968), 91 Ill.App.2d 337, 235 N.E.2d 284.) Useless or foolhardy resistance is not necessary. (People v. Green (3rd Dist. 1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 289, 347 N.......
-
People v. Giacinti
...resistance required of each victim of deviate sexual assault, each case must be considered on its own facts. (People v. Bendig (1st Dist., 1968), 91 Ill.App.2d 337, 235 N.E.2d 284). Useless or foolhardy resistance is not necessary. (People v. Green (3d Dist., 1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 289, 347 N......
-
People v. Williams
...requisite if double jeopardy is to be avoided. People v. Rosenfeld, 25 Ill.2d 473, 185 N.E.2d 236. The defendant cites People v. Bendig, 91 Ill.App.2d 337, 235 N.E.2d 284, where a man was charged with compelling a woman to 'submit to an act of oral copulation'. The facts of the case reveale......