People v. Cassidy

• Decision Date: 17 April 1918
• Docket Number: No. 11876.,11876.
• Citation: 283 Ill. 398,119 N.E. 279
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CASSIDY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

283 Ill. 398

119 N.E. 279

PEOPLE

v.CASSIDY.

No. 11876.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 17, 1918.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Richard Tuthill, Judge.

George Cassidy was convicted of rape, and he brings error. Reversed and remanded.Edgar A. Jonas, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Noah C. Bainum, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Daniel G. Ramsey, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

CARTER, C. J.

Plaintiff in error, George Cassidy, was indicted, tried by a jury, and found guilty of the crime of rape upon Anna Nadwarna, a girl about 15 years of age at the time of the offense, and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment in the penitentiary. This writ of error has been sued out to review the proceedings of the trial court.

Cassidy was about 26 years of age at the time of the alleged offense and lived with his mother, brother, and sister in West Pullman, in Cook county. The complaining witness lived a short distance from Cassidy's home with her mother and family. According to the state's witnesses, Anna worked at the Cassidy home more or less regularly in April, May, and June, of 1916. Her work was done mostly after 3 o'clock, after coming home from school. Anna testified that she first went to work for Mrs. Cassidy at her request about 1913; that she did such work as cleaning the house, washing and ironing clothes, making beds and dusting, for which she received five or ten cents a day and old clothing; that she continued this work during the years 1913, 1914, 1915, and until June, 1916, sometimes working as late as 8:30 or 9 o'clock in the evening. She testified concerning the acts of plaintiff in error at different times in April and May, but she was not able to remember the exact dates, but gave the time of day and the circumstances in some detail. A baby was born to her January 24, 1917, which lived only about five months.

Complaining witness testified that plaintiff in error had sexual intercourse with her several times against her will; that the first time was about April, 1916; that the mother, Mrs. Cassidy, was away from home at the time; that she told the witness she could find the key of the house in a certain place and to go in and do the housework; that witness came to the house from school shortly after 3 o'clock and did certain housework and then went into Cassidy's room to clean it up; that he came in when she was finishing and told her to go out, as he was going to bed, and to go and clean the bathroom; that he then called her back and said she could clean his room; that he was lying in bed as she started to mop up the floor; that he then came, being dressed only in a nightshirt, and puller her into bed; that she tried to get away from him by pushing him, but that he held her and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly; that she then went right home and said nothing to any one and did not go back until Mrs. Cassidy came for her, two or three days later; that the same thing happened two or three weeks later, his mother having then gone to Blue Island or some other nearby place, and having left the key, as before, for the complaining witness to find and go into the house to do the work; that on this second occasion she was ironing when plaintiff in error came in and pulled her down on the couch on the first floor; that she started to cry, but he compelled her to have sexual intercourse; that two or three weeks later she was making the bed upstairs; that plaintiff in error came home about 5:30 and pulled her into the bed and had intercourse with her, having his clothes on that time; that the next time was about two weeks later, when she was on the street coming from her cousin's, past the Illinois Central depot; that plaintiff in error called to her and pulled her into a box car on a switch track near the depot and had sexual relations with her in the car; that he later had sexual relations with her at his mother's home some time in June. She testified that she never had sexual intercourse with any other person than plaintiff in error.

It appears from the testimony of the complaining witness that she went into the municipal court with Mrs. Laing, who was a representative of the Legal Aid Society, to make complaint against Cassidy, evidently in the nature of a bastardy proceeding for the support of the child. While it was attempted to show by her testimony in the municipal court that her memory as to dates was uncertain, we find no material discrepancy on material points between her testimony given on this trial and that which she gave in the municipal court, as disclosed by her cross-examination, except, possibly, that she was in some doubt as to whether the last act complained of was committed in the box car or at the home of plaintiff in error.

Plaintiff in error testified in his own behalf and denied the charges, positively and specifically stating that he never got home during the months in question as early as 3:30 or 4 o'clock, the hours fixed by complaining witness when most of the offenses occurred. There was also testimony by his mother and two sisters that the complaining witness had never worked about the house doing housework for Mrs. Cassidy; that the most she had ever been employed to do was to run errands on the outside. There is also testimony by these same witnesses that Mrs. Cassidy was sick and confined to the bed most of the time during the months in question; and that she was not, and could not have been on account of her sickness, out of the house on the day testified to by the complaining witness. There is also testimony somewhat to the same effect as to Mrs. Cassidy's physical condition during the time in question by Dr. Post, that she had bronchial pneumonia and was in bed practically all the time from the middle of April until some time in June; that she was being nursed during all her illness by her married daughter.

William Woodrich, who testified for the people, stated that he lived a block from the Cassidy home, working at the shops near there; that he had seen the complaining witness go to Cassidy's to work frequently on returning from school about 4 o'clock, and that he had seen her working there sometimes as late as 9 o'clock in the evening; that he had seen her pressing clothes at the Cassidy home in May, 1916. Frances Natchus, 15 years old, testified that she had seen the complaining witness sweeping the Cassidy porch, and had once seen her scrubbing the floor in the kitchen some time from May to August of 1916; that she knew that the complaining witness ran errands for the Cassidys and washed dishes. A brother of the complaining witness testified that he had seen his sister working at the Cassidy's doing housework. Julia McGrath testified that early in the fall and winter of 1916 the complaining witness helped her at her house with the work and that she helped the girl with her studies; that she had some correspondence with Mrs. Cassidy in regard to keeping the complaining witness out of school to work.

We have stated substantially all of the testimony bearing on the question of the guilt or innocence of plaintiff in error. His counsel argues earnestly that the evidence does not justify the verdict. In criminal cases the weight of the evidence is for the jury, and where they find a defendant guilty this court will not reverse the trial court's judgment unless the testimony is palpably against the weight of the evidence or harmful error in the rulings of the court has taken place on the trial. Lathrop v. People, 197 Ill. 169, 64 N. E. 385;Barrett v. People, 220 Ill. 304, 77 N. E. 224;People v. McCann, 247 Ill. 130, 93 N. E. 100,20 Ann. Cas. 496;People v. Barnes, 270 Ill. 574, 110 N. E. 881. While the testimony given on the trial is conflicting on material...