People v. Davidson
| Decision Date | 02 June 1909 |
| Citation | 240 Ill. 191,88 N.E. 565 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. DAVIDSON et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Henry V. Freeman, Judge.
Mary Davidson and another were convicted of harboring an unmarried female under 18 years of age in a house of prostitution, and they bring error. Affirmed.
At the November term, 1908, of the criminal court of Cook county, Mary and David Davidson, as keepers of a house of prostitution, were convicted of harboring Josephine Piatkowski, an unmarried female under the age of 18 years, in the house of prostitution alleged to have been kept by them. Each of the defendants was sentenced by the court to the penitentiary, and they have sued out this writ of error. Upon the trial evidence was offered which tended to show that plaintiffs in error conducted a house of prostitution at 9024 and 9026 The Strand, in the city of Chicago; that during the month of September, 1908, Josephine Piatkowski, then an unmarried female 15 years of age, became an inmate of that house, and remained there, with their consent, for a period of three weeks, having sexual intercourse with men, and dividing moneys received for so doing with the keepers of the house. Plaintiffs in error contend that the court erred in passing on objections to evidence and in instructing the jury.Charles E. Erbstein, for plaintiffs in error.
W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and John E. W. Wayman, State's Atty. (Roy Wright and John T. Fleming, of counsel), for the People.
The bill of exceptions contains, first, the testimony of the girl, Josephine Piatkowski, and the testimony of her mother, in narrative form, and then continues in the form of a common-law bill of exceptions, reciting that there was evidence offered by each party which tended to prove certain facts. The girl and her mother both testified that at the time of the trial the girl was not yet 16 years of age; that the day of her birth was May 20, A. D. 1893. The bill of exceptions recites that the defendants introduced evidence tending to prove that the girl was of the age of 22 years in May, 1908. The plaintiffs in error called a police officer, and offered to prove by him that the girl ‘had the appearance of being 22 years of age.’ This was offered, not on the theory that her appearance as to age was in and of itself material, but as tending to show that she was, in fact, more than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged crime. It is urged that the court erred in excluding the testimony of this officer, and reliance is placed upon the case of Wistrand v. People, 213 Ill. 72, 72 N. E. 748. In that case the age of the defendant was material, and it was held the jury could not determine his age by inspecting his person during the trial, but it was said that, for the purpose of fixing his age, ‘persons who had seen him would have been competent to testify relative to his apperance, and such testimony would have been proper for the consideration of the jury on the question of age.’ This is not a holding that a witness may in the first instance express his opinion as to age from such appearance. Where testimony of this kind is material, the witness should first describe the appearance of the individual whose age is in question, and then state his opinion in reference to the age of the person, based upon the appearance of that person as he has already described it. 1 Elliott on Evidence, § 677. Plaintiffs in error failed to pursue the proper method in attempting to obtain the opinion of this witness on this subject.
The second instruction given at the request of the people advised the jury that it was not necessary to prove the offense as of the precise time alleged in the indictment, but that it was sufficient if the time proven was prior to the date of the indictment and ‘within the period set by the statute of limitations.’ It is said that the instruction is wrong in that it failed to fix the time covered by the statute of limitations, and this objection is well taken; but the error did not affect the rights of the accused in this case, for the reason that all the testimony which indicated that the crime had been committed tended to show that the time of its commission was in September, 1908, which was less than two months before the return of the indictment.
Complaint is also made of the third instruction given at the request of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bickford
... ... separate counts are made use of in so doing, the information ... must clearly show but one offense charged. People v ... Thompson, 28 Cal. 217; People v. Shotwell, 27 ... Cal. 394, 400; People v. Garcia, 58 Cal. 103; ... People v. Quvise, 56 Cal. 396; ... 520, 74 N.E. 772; Mai v ... People, 224 Ill. 414, 79 N.E. 633; People v ... Lee, 237 Ill. 272, 86 N.E. 573; People v ... Davidson, 240 Ill. 191, 88 N.E. 565; People v ... Morton, 245 Ill. 530, 92 N.E. 318; State v ... Holland, 162 Mo.App. 678, 145 S.W. 522; State v ... ...
-
Garmon v. People
...Ill. 461, 81 N.E.2d 211.2 Wistrand v. People, 213 Ill. 72, 72 N.E. 748; People v. Rogers, 415 Ill. 343, 114 N.E.2d 398; People v. Davidson, 240 Ill. 191, 88 N.E. 565; People v. Claussen, 367 Ill. 430, 11 N.E.2d 959; People v. Willson, 401 Ill. 68, 81 N.E.2d 485; and People v. Davis, 358 Ill......
-
People v. Arnett
... ... It was not error to permit the jury to retire and amend its verdict by putting it in proper form. Schmidt v. Chicago City Railway Co. 239 Ill. 494, 501, 88 N.E. 275; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Maehl, 130 Ill. 551, 558, 22 N.E. 715; Martin v. Morelock, 32 Ill. 485. See also People v. Davidson", 240 Ill. 191, 88 N.E. 565; Godfreidson v. People, 88 Ill. 284; Strickland Wine Co. v. Hayes, 94 Ill.App. 476 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
People v. Crowe
... ... The record in this case shows the indictment alleged the offense was committed on July 19, 1943, and the indictment was returned by the grand jury and filed in court on July 30, 1943. To the same effect are People v. Davidson, 240 Ill. 191, at page 193, 88 N.E. 565;People v. Olroyd, 335 Ill. 61, 166 N.E. 462. The error, therefore, is harmless.We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and are of the opinion that the plaintiff has had a fair trial, and in our opinion the evidence was such that the jury could not ... ...