People v. Bolik
| Decision Date | 26 October 1909 |
| Citation | 89 N.E. 700,241 Ill. 394 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BOLIK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; William H. McSurely, Judge.
John Bolik was convicted of rape, and brings error. Reversed and remanded.
A. J. Bedard and Samuel Spitzer, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and John E. W. Wayman, State's Atty. (June C. Smith and John T. Fleming, of counsel), for the People.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the criminal court of Cook county of rape, and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years.
The complaining witness, Mamie Hanson, a girl 15 years old, testified that she was a stenographer employed by plaintiff in error at his paint store, 2007 North Halsted street, Chicago, Ill., the last two weeks of December, 1908; that thereafter, on January 9, 1909, she asked the plaintiff in error, over the telephone, for employment, and was told that he had some contracts to write; that she thereupon called at his place of business about 5 o'clock p. m. on that date, and worked for him an hour, and also the next day and the following Monday, January 11th, the date on which the assault is alleged to have been committed; that some time between 5 and 5:30 p. m. plaintiff in error called her to the back of the store, and ravished her against her will and despite her resistance. On cross-examination she stated that she made no outcry; that the assault lasted about two minutes; that persons might have come in the store while they were in the back, but that she saw no one when she returned from the rear; that after the assault plaintiff in error unlocked the front door; that she then went away, and met one William C. Churchill on a corner near plaintiff in error's store, and was with him until about 8:00 o'clock p. m., and that she told him what had occurred. She was brought into the North avenue police station from a friend's house some three weeks after the alleged assault. Up to that time she did not tell any one, except Churchill, about what had transpired. She admitted that she had made a complaint, and testified before the grand jury against Churchill.
Plaintiff in error testified that he was 30 years of age, married, and was a painting contractor. He denied having committed the assault, or having had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness on the date charged, or at any other time, claiming that on the day in question he was attending a sick horse, and did not reach his store until between 6 and 7 o'clock p. m., when he found several of his workmen waiting for him. One of these workmen testified that on January 11, 1909, he, with several other workmen, reached plaintiff in error's store from a job about 5 or 5:15 p. m., and saw the complaining witness at her desk, dressed for the street; that she stated that Bolik, before going away early in the day, asked her to remain until the workmen arrived; that she then went away, leaving him and the other workmen waiting for Bolik, who arrived about 6 o'clock. Dr. E. L. Quitman, a veterinary surgeon, testified that he was with plaintiff in error on said date between 4:30 and 5:30 p. m., attending a sick horse belonging to plaintiff in error, at 733 Wells street, which is about three miles from said paint store. Several neighbors and associates testified that plaintiff in error's general reputation for chastity was good. The abstract is in narrative form, and the foregoing is the substance of all the testimony preserved in the record.
Plaintiff in error contends that the evidence does not support the verdict. The only testimony for the state was that of the complaining witness, and is in absolute conflict with the testimony of plaintiff in error and two other witnesses. Her testimony is apparently unreasonable in several particulars. She admitted that she made no outcry, and that persons may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. George
... ... Evidence of ... possession by accused of property not proven to have been ... stolen is inadmissible. Smith v. State, 68 S.W. 510; ... People v. Wallace, (Ill.) 136 N.E. 723; Grant v ... State, 58 S.W. 1026. Acts or declarations of ... co-conspirator, made after the conspiracy not in ... apparently the result of passion or prejudice, reviewing ... court should reverse. People v. Bolik, (Ill.) 89 ... N.E. 700; Green v. State, (Okla.) 170 P. 667; ... State v. Miller, (Mo.) 137 S.W. 887; Ren v. State, ... 132 P. 1131 ... ...
-
People v. Gurdak
...204 Ill. 604, 68 N. E. 512;Cunningham v. People, 210 Ill. 410, 71 N. E. 389;Dahlberg v. People, 225 Ill. 485, 80 N. E. 310;People v. Bolik, 241 Ill. 394, 89 N. E. 700;People v. Rischo, 262 Ill. 596, 105 N. E. 8;People v. Thomas, 272 Ill. 558, 112 N. E. 354;People v. Ahrling, 279 Ill. 70, 11......
-
People v. Lucus
... ... Kalpak, 10 Ill.2d 411, 424, 140 N.E.2d 726), he has the responsibility to insure that the instruction tendered is in proper form. (People v. Bolik, 241 Ill. 394, 397, 398, 89 N.E. 700.) Instructions must not assume the existence of any material facts in issue. See People v. Schallman, 273 Ill. 564, 573, 113 N.E. 113; People v. Blevins, 251 Ill. 381, 96 N.E. 214 ... The defendant's instructions 13 and 15 stated that the ... ...
- People v. McPheron