People v. Cieslak
| Decision Date | 16 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 16950.,16950. |
| Citation | 149 N.E. 815,319 Ill. 221 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CIESLAK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; William N. Gemmill, Judge.
John Cieslak was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Harold E. Sullivan, Martin M. Ward, and George D. Sullivan, all of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Frank R. Eagleton, of Champaign (Edward E. Wilson and Clarence E. Nelson, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
This writ of error is prosecuted to review the judgment of the criminal court of Cook county finding plaintiff in error guilty of the crime of assault with intent to rape.
The assault out of which this prosecution arises occurred about 10 o'clock p. m., April 10, 1924, at the home of Thomas F. Lesniak, Chicago. Lesniak and his wife occupied two rear rooms on the second floor of a two-story frame building, one room serving as kitchen and dining room and the other as living room and bedroom. On the night in question plaintiff in error, John Cieslak, ate dinner with the Lesniaks. After dinner the two men left the flat to get some wine. While they were gone Mrs. Lesniak called by telephone Catherine Raven, the prosecutrix, and invited her to join the party. Miss Raven accepted the invitation and arrived at the flat shortly before the men returned with the wine. During the next hour three quarts of wine and some other home-made intoxicating liquors were consumed. Mr. and Mrs. Lesniak and Cieslak testify that the two men and Miss Raven each drank about ten or twelve glasses of the wine and one or two of gin. Miss Raven says that she drank four glasses of wine and that they were ordinary wine glasses. While the two men and Miss Raven were sitting at the table, drinking, Mrs. Lesniak's younger sister and another girl called. About 9:30 Mr. and Mrs. Lesniak took Cieslak's car and drove the girls home. When the Lesniaks returned, about an hour later, they found Miss Raven sitting in the stairway with her face badly bruised.
Miss Raven testifies that as soon as the Lesniaks drove away, Cieslak began to take indecent liberties with her; that she asked him to leave her alone, but that he persisted; that she undertook to push him away from her and that he grabbed her wrists and pulled her toward the bed; that she kept lighting with him and that he finally struck her in the face with his fist; that she continued to fight him and that he hit her in the face again; that she finally became unconscious and did not know what happened after that until she regained consciousness, when she was sitting on a chair in the kitchen and Mr. and Mrs. Lesniak were applying wet cloths to her face; that she remained at the Lesniak flat that night and the next day and returned home in the evening.
Plaintiff in error testifies that when the Lesniaks left in his automobile Miss Raven refused to go with them and said she would stay at the flat with him; that as soon as they had gone she walked up to him, put her arms around him, and said, ‘How do you feel, Daddy?’ that he replied that he felt like having another drink, and that they each drank another glass of wine; that she invited him to dance, and that he told her he did not know how; that she said she would teach him, and that she put her arms around his waist and he put his arms around her and they walked around the floor; that they finally sat down on the bed and continued to embrace and kiss each other; that he suggested sexual intercourse, and that she asked him if he had any money; that he replied that he had none, and that then she put her hand into his pocket, saying she had seen him with a roll of money; that he did have $50 or $60 with him, and that he grabbed her wrist and kept her from taking the money out of his pocket; that she became angry and scratched him; that he shoved her away from him and that she fell on the bed and bumped her head against the corner post; that she grabbed a hair brush from the dresser and struck him with it and cursed him; that he shoved her back against the bed again and she cut her face on the headboard; that he left the house and waited at the corner saloon until the Lesniaks returned with his car; that when they had left the car in front of the house he got it and drove home.
Mr. and Mrs. Lesniak testified that Miss Raven was invited to go with them when they left in the automobile, but that she wanted to stay where she was; that she was dancing with Cieslak before they left; that they were gone between 40 minutes and an hour; that when they returned they found her sitting on the stair steps; that they asked her what was the matter, and that she said she and John had had a fight; that when she was asked what she was going to do about it, she said she was going to get some one to lick him; that they took her into the flat and bathed her bruised face; that they kept her with them until the next evening, when she was taken home.
[1][2][3][4] ‘Rape’ is the carnal knowledge of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kleba
...not his wife, by force and against her will, * * *." Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 11-1(a). Defendant relies on People v. Cieslak (1925), 319 Ill. 221, 149 N.E. 815 for his contention that proof of only an intent to commit a sexual assault is not sufficient to support a conviction for att......
-
People v. Hiller
...intention to have intercourse with a woman by force and against her will. People v. Jenkins, 342 Ill. 238, 174 N.E. 30; People v. Cieslak, 319 Ill. 221, 149 N.E. 815. But this intention need not be an expressed one, it may be inferred from the acts of the accused and the circumstances of th......
-
State v. Simmons
...invited the advances which constitute the assault. State v. McCune (1898), 16 Utah 170, 51 P. 818. As was said in People v. Cieslak (1925), 319 Ill. 221, 225, 149 N.E. 815, 816, where the defendant was charged with 'assault with intent to rape,' '* * * Where the improper conduct is admitted......
-
United States v. Bryant
... ... The Supreme Court of Illinois, in People v. Cieslak, 319 Ill. 221, 224, 149 N.E. 815, 816 (1925) stated that in a prosecution for assault with intent to rape, ... the proof of a mere ... ...