People v. Fitzgibbons

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: STONE
• Citation: People v. Fitzgibbons, 346 Ill. 338, 179 N.E. 106 (Ill. 1931)
• Decision Date: 17 December 1931
• Docket Number: No. 20961.,20961.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. FITZGIBBONS.

346 Ill. 338

179 N.E. 106

PEOPLE

v.FITZGIBBONS.

No. 20961.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1931.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; George Fred Rush, Judge.

Leonard Fitzgibbons was convicted of the crime against nature, and he brings error.

Affirmed.Charles V. Falkenberg, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

STONE, C. J.

Plaintiff in error was found guilty in the criminal court of Cook county of the crime against nature upon and with one Kenneth F. Hoffman, a boy of the age of seven years. The indictment consisted of four counts. The first charged the crime against nature. All but the first were nolle prossed at the close of the people's evidence.

The conviction is based on the testimony of the complaining witness, Kenneth F. Hoffman, and Bobby Zeisler, another boy seven years old. Their evidence tends to show that on the afternoon of July 9, 1930, at about 4 or 5 o'clock, as they were passing plaintiff in error's garage, plaintiff in error called Kenneth into the garage, telling him that he had a job for him; that while there plaintiff in error committed upon him the crime against nature. Immediately thereafter, plaintiff in error summoned Bobby Zeisler from the alley into the garage and committed the crime against nature on him, the latter in the presence of Kenneth Hoffman. The testimony of these boys is that plaintiff in error then gave each a nickel and a glass of lemonade.

Frank N. Hoffman, father of Kenneth, testified that on the evening of July 9, 1930, he went to plaintiff in error's garage and said to him, ‘What is the idea of giving my boy money?’ that he replied that the boys were trying to steal his inner tubes; that the witness said: ‘Do you pay kids for stealing your tubes? I ought to knock your head off. I will have the law take care of you.’ The witness testified that he called the police.

Plaintiff in error testified denying all charges against him. He stated that he was not alone at the time these boys were in his garage, but that one William Murmence was there from 2:30 to 5:15, and that after Murmence left the garage one Robert Pedersen was there during the time the boys were in the garage. He also testified that the Hoffman boy and another boy came into the garage, stood in the doorway a while and left, and, when they went away, they took an inner tube and a hub cap.

William Murmence testified that on July 9 he was in plaintiff in error's garage from 2:30 to 5:15; that up to the time he left, neither of the boys, nor any other boys, had entered the garage.

Robert Pedersen testified that he was eighteen years old, was, and for three years had been, employed by the Western Union Telegraph Company, and had known plaintiff in error since he was a small boy; that about 5:15 on July 9, 1930, he entered the garage of plaintiff in error; that plaintiff in error's wife was there with him; that witness remained about twenty minutes, and, at plaintiff in error's request, helped him with the car on which he was working; that while seated in the car two small boys, one of whom was Kenneth Hoffman, came to the garage; that when the boys left they took an inner tube and a hub cap; that the witness told plaintiff in error and he went out and caught the boys; and that at no time did plaintiff in error do the things the two boys testified about.

In rebuttal, the people called William J. Malone, supervisor of the Western Union Telegraph Company, who testified that he had charge of the time cards of the employees; that the card of Robert Pederson for July 30, 1930, showed that he reported for duty at 3:27 p. m., went to work at 3:30 and worked until 8:14 p. m., when he went out to lunch and returned at 8:43, and was off duty at 11:58 p. m., and that during that time he had two rest periods; one from 6:11 to 6:21 p. m., and the other from 11:42 to 11:57 p. m. The people also introduced the record of a plea of guilty of plaintiff in error on September 28, 1917, to a charge of larceny of an automobile of the value of $450, and of his sentence to the Pontiac reformatory.

Plaintiff in error first argues that the only competent evidence offered against him was that of Kenneth Hoffman, and that because plaintiff in error denied the charge, the evidence to support the conviction should have been corroborated by other competent evidence, facts, or circumstances, citing in support thereof People v. Blanch, 309 Ill. 426, 141 N. E. 146, and People v. Bolik, 241 Ill. 394, 89 N. E. 700. In the Blanch Case, the...