People v. Fitzgerald
| Citation | 322 Ill. 54,152 N.E. 542 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 16893.,16893. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. FITZGERALD. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Jacob H. Hopkins, Judge.
Richard Fitzgerald was convicted of rape, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
James C. O'Brien, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Caristrom, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Clarence E. Nelson, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Richard Fitzgerald (herein referred to as the defendant), and Nathan Berman, were jointly indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for the crime of rape. The defendant was found guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and the jury fixed his punishment and imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of 20 years, and his age was found to be 16 years. On that verdict the court sentenced the defendant to the Illinois State Reformatory at Pontiac for a term of 20 years. The defendant has sued out this writ of error to review the judgment and sentence.
About 7 o'clock in the evening of November 26, 1924, Thomas Imposino, while driving his automobile in the city of Chicago, met the prosecuting witness, Catherine Lettier, of the age of 21 years, and invited her to take a ride in his automobile. She accepted and they drove around until about 9 o'clock and then stopped the automobile on Lowe avenue, about 50 feet from the corner of Fifty-Third street. There they stopped the car and remained seated in the front seat for about half an hour, conversing with each other. They had gone to school together and were well acquainted. While they were thus sitting in the automobile the defendant and Berman walked by the car and then walked back and asked Imposino if he had a cigarette, and he replied, ‘No.’ Defendant and Berman then walked away from the car, but shortly thereafter returned, Berman approaching the car on the right and the defendant on the left. Berman pointed a pistol at Imposino and ordered him to ‘stick them up.’ Berman then ordered the prosecuting witness out of the front seat of the car and into the back seat, and ordered Imposino to move over to the right-hand side of the car, away from the side on which the steering wheel was located. Berman entered the back seat with the prosecuting witness and told the defendant to drive the car. Defendant was unable to start the car, and he and Berman exchanged places, the defendant taking the gun from Berman. Berman started the car and drove north on Lowe avenue to Fifty-Second street and from thence west on Fifty-Second street to Carpenter street, thence south to Fifty-Third street, and thence east on Fifty-Third street to an alleyway. During this drive Fitzgerald took the prosecuting witness' pocketbook and removed $2 therefrom, which was never returned to her. When they arrived at the alleyway Imposino was ordered out of the car and into the alley, where Berman searched him but took nothing from him. Berman ordered Imposino to remain in the alley, and told him he would blow his brains out if he did not do so. They left Imposino in the alley and drove away in the car to Forty-Ninth and Morgan streets. They told the prosecuting witness that if she made any outery they would blow her brains out. When they stopped the ear they dragged the prosecuting witness out of it and took her onto the railroad embankment near the tracks, back of a coal shed, where it was very dark, and threw her down. Defendant asked Berman, using the vilest and most vulgar language possible, if he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her first, and Berman answered, ‘All right.’ Then he raised her dress, tore her underwear, and perpetrated the crime charged. While this was going on Fitzgerald was lying down beside prosecuting witness, holding her around the neck in such a way that she could not move. Defendant had the gun in his hand all of the time. She could not help herself because the defendant had both hands around her neck, choking her, so that she could not change her position. When Berman got through the defendant proceeded to accomplish the same act, while Berman held her around the neck so that she could not move. They then left the prosecuting witness lying on the ground and went away. After they had gone the prosecuting witness got up and went back to the street where the car had been stopped and into a house and asked if she could use the telephone. She was directed to go to a drug store on the corner. She found some change in her coat pocket and took a street car and went to her sister's home. When she arrived at her sister's house she was crying and her face was dirty and her clothes torn and soiled. She was in such a hysterical condition that she was unable to tell her sister what had happened. Shortly thereafter two detectives came to her sister's house, and she went with them to Dr. Phillips' office, and he examined the vaginal region of the girl and found numerous lacerations, little scratches, and blood exuding. Dr. Phillips stated that these injuries, in his opinion, were the result of recent violence, and that the abrasions were still fresh. The car that Imposino was driving on that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. State
... ... got outside he threw the mask away. He walked to the viaduct ... on Orleans Street and then went home. The next morning he ... heard people on the street talking about the shooting. He put ... his gun in the basement and later took it to his ... brother's house. He did not go home again ... any threat or inducement. Toomer v. State, 112 Md ... 285, 76 A. 118; People v. Fitzgerald, 322 Ill. 54, ... 142 N.E. 542; People v. Parsons, 105 Mich. 177, 63 ... N.W. 69. And the fact that a prisoner makes a confession ... while he is ... ...
-
Jones v. State
... ... not made as the result of any threat or inducement ... Toomer v. State, 112 Md. 285, 76 A. 118; People ... v. Fitzgerald, 322 Ill. 54, 142 N.E. 542; People v ... Parsons, 105 Mich. 177, 63 N.W. 69. And the fact that a ... prisoner makes a ... ...
-
People v. Davenport
... ... The appellant seems to concede that under the cases cited by him no consent of a juvenile court is required before a minor may be prosecuted on a criminal charge. The cases cited relate to the predecessor of the present section 702--7. Those cases are: People v. Fitzgerald, 322 Ill. 54, 152 N.E 542 (1926); People v. Lattimore, [111 Ill.App.2d 200] 362 Ill. 206, 199 N.E. 275 (1935); and People ex rel. Malec v. Lewis, 362 Ill. 229, 199 N.E. 276 (1935) ... These cases were discussed in People v. Hester, 39 Ill.2d 489, 237 N.E.2d 466 (1968). From our ... ...
-
People v. Sheehan
... ... James Byrne, a police officer, testified that he found a blackjack in Ordman's truck and that Sorrentino admitted that it belonged to him and that he had used it in the robbery. Byrne also stated that Sheehan was carrying a set of brass knuckles when arrested. James Fitzgerald, another police officer, testified that Sheehan appeared to be sober when arrested and that his breath did not have an alcoholic odor ... Sheehan and Sorrentino each appeared as a witness in his own behalf. Sorrentino's testimony was primarily directed to matters in mitigation ... ...
-
Honesty is the best policy: a case for the limitation of deceptive police interrogation practices in the United States.
...United States. (1.) FRED E. INBAU ET AL CRIMINAL INTERROGATION AND CONFESSIONS 67-68, 599 (4th ed. 2001); see also People v. Fitzgerald. 152 N.E. 542, 544 (Ill. 1926) ("A confession is not rendered inadmissible by the mere fact that it was elicited by questions put by police officers.... ev......