People v. Herzberger
| Decision Date | 13 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 25259.,25259. |
| Citation | 372 Ill. 251,23 N.E.2d 37 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HERZBERGER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Walter T. Stanton, Judge.
Virginia Herzberger and other were convicted for taking indecent liberties with an eight-year-old girl, and they bring error.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.Benjamin C. Bachrach and Frank, J. Ferlic, both of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.
John E. Cassidy, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and A. B. Dennis, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, and Blair L. Varnes, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Virginia Herzberger, Dorothy Herzberger, Gertrude Cronk and Joe Morgan were indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for taking indecent liberties with Joan Taylor, an eight-year-old girl. On a jury trial, they were found guilty and sentenced to prison, and bring the record to this court for review.
The first error assigned for reversal is that the evidence did not establish the guilt of each of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt. When Joan was two years old her parents separated and virtually abandoned her. When two and one-half years old she was taken into the home of defendant Virginia Herzberger and husband, where she was supported and maintained for about six years. March 2, 1938, John Taylor, the father of John, was told by Virginia Herzberger to take the child or give consent to their adopting her. He took the child with him and she was never under the care of the Herzbergers after that date. Virginia Herzberger, aged thirty-four,resided with her husband and was the mother of a grown daughter; Dorothy was married to a brother of Virginia's husband and resided with her husband and three children, ranging in ages from two and one-half to eight. Gertrude Cronk, aged 37, was separated from her husband, but not divorced, and was the mother of eight children, who were all cared for in an institution. At the time of the commission of the alleged offense and for more than a year prior thereto she had been living with defendant Joe Morgan in a two-room apartment. Morgan was forty years of age and had spent eighteen of them in prison for various crimes, none of which has anything to do with sex. The Herzberger families were acquainted with Mrs. Cronk and at various times visited at the Morgan apartment. The evidence introduced for the purpose of proving the offense is of such a revolting character that it is not fit for publication. We have examined it with care and are of the opinion that the guilt of the defendants have not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of Joan is contradicted by all the defendants, and the testimony of the medical expert, offered in corroboration, is of slight...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Halteman
...to sustain the conviction although her testimony is not corroborated. People v. Pazell, 399 Ill. 462, 78 N.E.2d 212; People v. Herzberger, 372 Ill. 251, 23 N.E.2d 37. We are unable to find in the record any substantial contradiction of the testimony of Constance. According to her testimony ......
-
People v. Kerney
... ... In support of his contention that the questions asked of, and the answers given by these witnesses were prejudicial, defendant cites People v. Rogers, 324 Ill. 224, 154 N.E. 909; People v. Reed, 287 Ill. 606, 122 N.E. 806; People v. Herzberger, 372 Ill. 251, 23 N.E.2d 37; People v. Cordes, 391 Ill. 47, 62 N.E.2d 465; People v. Wilson, 400 Ill. 603, 81 N.E.2d 445; and People v. Kidd, 410 Ill. 271, 102 N.E.2d 141. An examination of these cases discloses that none of them is in point. In the Rogers case the evidence complained of ... ...
-
People v. Pazell
... ... People v. Crowe, 390 Ill. 294, 61 N.E.2d 348. To sustain a conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, her testimony must be must clear and convincing. People v. Herzberger, 372 Ill. 251, 23 N.E.2d 37. In cases of this character, the account of an eyewitness (People v. Sharp, 384 Ill. 503, 51 N.E.2d 554), the testimony of a witness to other indecent liberties [78 N.E.2d 215]taken by the defendant with the complaining witness either prior to (People v. Mocko, 388 Ill ... ...
- People v. Finkelstein