People v. Faulisi

• Citation: 25 Ill.2d 457,185 N.E.2d 211
• Decision Date: 28 September 1962
• Docket Number: No. 37027,37027
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert FAULISI, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Page 211

185 N.E.2d 211

25 Ill.2d 457

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert FAULISI, Plaintiff in Error.

No. 37027.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 28, 1962.

Schwartz, Zaban & Buchalter, Chicago (Seymour Zaban, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Deniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O'Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., and John T. Gallagher and Matthew J. Moran, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.

HERSHEY, Justice.

Defendant was indicted for the crime of rape. After pleading not guilty and waiving his right to trial by jury, he was tried by the court, found guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of four years. His principal contention on this writ of error is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding of guilt.

The act of intercourse is admitted. The question is the sufficiency of the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intercourse was forcible and against the will of the complaining witness.

The incident giving rise to the charge of rape took place in the home of the complaining witness between 3:00 A.M., and 4:00 A.M., on April 11, 1961. On April 10, 1961, at about 10:00 P.M., the defendant was driven to work by the husband of the complaining witness, whom he had known for about 14 years. They stopped first at the Maywood race track and then proceeded to their place of employment, arriving there about 11:20 P.M. Both men were due to commence work at 11:30 P.M. At about midnight defendant was sent home by his boss, as there was insufficient work. The husband loaned defendant his car to ride home in, saying he would ride home in one of the trucks.

The defendant rang the door bell at the complaining witness's house about 3:00 A.M. and was admitted by her. They sat on a sofa and talked for 10 or 15 minutes. She was clad only in her pajamas and did not put anything over them. She testified that the pajama tops were of a quilted material and the pants of rayon. Although she testified that these pajamas were of a type that could be properly worn in company without anything over them, it was demonstrated in the court room that the pants were, at least to some extent, transparent. They also had a hole in the crotch, which the complaining witness admitted was there before the arrival of the defendant.

After they had conversed for 10 or 15 minutes, the defendant started kissing and fondling the complaining witness and then started to pull her pants down. She testified that she told him not to do it, that she did not return his kisses willingly, and tried to fight him off. According to the defendant's testimony, the complaining witness was co-operative and returned his kisses. Apparently the sectional sofa which the two were occupying came apart and they fell to the floor. They got up and walked to the bedroom, where the act of intercourse (or, according to the defendant's testimony, two acts) took place. Defendant testified that the complaining witness did not resist. She, however, testified that he forced her into the bedroom by twisting her arm and that she struggled trying to fight him off and was yelling for him to go away and leave her alone.

There is a conflict in the testimony as to the circumstances of the defendant's leaving the house. The complaining witness testified that after the act of intercourse, she told the defendant she was going to call her husband at work, and that she did call her husband while the defendant was in the bath room, and then the defendant left the house. Defendant's testimony was to the effect that, after the completion of the act, they were talking when the door bell rang and there was a knocking at the door. Thinking it might be the husband, the defendant told the complaining witness to get dressed right away, and she got up and put her pajamas on. The defendant looked out the window but saw no one at the door. He then washed up and left the house.

The testimony for the People is that the complaining witness called her husband at work about 4:00 A.M., that he came home at once and his wife told him the defendant had raped her. Neither she nor her husband called the police. The evidence is in substantial agreement that the husband then went to the defendant's house and a fight ensued during which the husband hit the defendant over the head with an ash tray. The defendant's wife called the police at the request of the defendant.

The complaining witness testified that defendant inflicted a bruise on her eye and a bruise on her arm and leg. There was ample corroboration that she had a 1/4 inch cut near one eye, but there was no satisfactory corroboration as to the bruises on her arm and leg, and three witnesses, one of them a witness for the People, who observed the complaining witness on the following day, testified that they had not seen any such bruises. The complaining witness also testified that she was sent by the police to a doctor for an examination, but that she did not complain of any injuries to the doctor. The doctor did not appear as a witness.

Reviewing courts are especially charged with the duty of carefully examining the evidence in rape cases (People v. Qualls, 21 Ill.2d 252, 171 N.E.2d 612; People v. Kazmierczyk, 357 Ill. 592, 192 N.E. 657), and it is the duty of the reviewing court not only to consider the evidence carefully but to reverse the judgment if the evidence is not...