People v. Hornaday
| Citation | 81 N.E.2d 168,400 Ill. 361 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 30469.,30469. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HORNADAY. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Daniel A. Roberts, judge.
Louis Hornaday was convicted of forcible rape, and he brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
W. G. Anderson, of Chicago (Stephen Lee, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (William J. Tuohy, State's Atty., John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, and W. S. Miroslawski, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the people.
Plaintiff in error, Louis Hornaday, 26 years of age, was found guilty by the criminal court of Cook County of forcible rape and was sentenced April 3, 1947, to the penitentiary for fifteen years. He brings the case here on writ of error seeking to reverse the judgment.
On October 28, 1946, at about 1:30 A.M., the prosecuting witness was waiting at Sixty-third Street and Dorchester Avenue in Chicago for a bus to take her home. A car stopped near her when a man got out and walked to a nearby newsstand. A moment later she was struck in the back of the head, a hand was placed over her mouth and she was dragged into the automobile by the man who just gotten out of it. He told her if she was smart she would not say a word but would keep quiet. She tried to scream but the man put his hand over her mouth commanding her to keep quiet. He told her if she broke away from him she would not get very far. She pleaded with him to let her go saying she had three children to take care of, and he said when he got through with her he would let her go, maybe. After driving thirty or forty minutes he stopped the car and pointed to a two-story building and told her there were fifteen negro friends of his there and when he got through with her they would start on her. She could not say where they were at this time. When the car stopped he made advances toward her and she began kicking and fighting with him but he overcame her by force and raped her. She had struggled with him for fifteen or twenty minutes. After the act was completed he told her he was through with her and was taking her up to those negro friends and said ‘You will not face the world any more.’ She then lunged against the door which opened and she fell out, and at the same time some object which she thought was a pillow fell from the car. She was screaming as the car drove away. This was prior to 3:20 A.M. and was on Shields Avenue in Chicago. When she fell out she hurt her head and skinned her knees. Several men living on Shields Avenue who had heard her screams came and took her into a house and brought her some water while she reclined on a couch. Shortlythereafter some police officers came to the house and plaintiff in error was with them. She immediately identified him as her assailant. She also identified him in the court room. When she fell from the car she lost her purse, one glove and her hat. She remembered that the car had red leather seats and a little white Scotty dog attached to the dash, and also had some pillows in it. Later, in company with a couple of officers, she searched the neighborhood and found an automobile which she identified as the one in which the offense was committed and in it was found one of her gloves and on the dash was a white Scotty dog held there by magnetic attraction.
Plaintiff in error denied that he had ever seen the prosecuting witness and that he had any part whatever in the commission of the crime. He at first denied owing an automobile but later admitted that he owned one. The car identified by the prosecutrix was shown to be his. He testified that he had married the day before. He was of the Catholic faith and his wife had been Protestant but had recently turned Catholic. They were not, however, married by a Catholic priest, but were advised by a priest not to live together as man and wife until they had been married according to the Catholic regulations. He told Officer Dragel that he was with his wife until about 1:30 or 2:00 o'clock A.M. Shortly after 3:35 A.M. officer Daniel Dragel found the pillow and the lady's purse and hat on the curbstone near 5325 Shields Avenue. This was in the city of Chicago, county of Cook and State of Illinois, and was only a short distance from the place were the automobile in question was found.
On April 24, 1947, plaintiff in error filed a motion nunc pro tunc as of April 3, 1947, to set aside the judgment and grant him a new trial. There is no showing in the record that this motion was ever presented to the court or that it was argued, and no ruling of the court thereon appears of record.
As grounds for reversal plaintiff in error contends the venue was not proved by competent evidence; that the record fails to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Schmitt
...has a responsibility to obtain a ruling on his motion if he wishes to raise a question pertaining thereto on appeal. (People v. Hornaday (1948), 400 Ill. 361, 81 N.E.2d 168.) This, Nielsen has not done. Moreover, where, as here, a party acquiesces in proceeding in a given manner, he is not ......
-
People v. Beardsley
...806, 414 N.E.2d 859.) A motion is an application to the court which must be brought to the court's attention (People v. Hornaday (1948), 400 Ill. 361, 364-65, 81 N.E.2d 168), and merely filing the motion in the office of the clerk, as defendant did here, does not constitute a sufficient app......
-
People v. Land
...that the failure to obtain a ruling on a motion for new trial waives the issues raised for appellate review. (See People v. Hornaday (1948), 400 Ill. 361, 81 N.E.2d 168.) Additionally, an objection made at trial is not sufficient to preserve issues for review; if the issues were not raised ......
-
State v. Abbott
...from a consideration of and comes out of the evidence in the cause, State v. Willard, 346 Mo. 773, 142 S.W.2d 1046, People v. Hornaday, 400 Ill. 361, 81 N.E.2d 168, 170(7). The doubt which authorizes acquittal must be substantial and it may not be fanciful, whimsical or capricious. See case......
-
James Oakley Publishes Chapter In Illinois Civil Procedure Handbook
...the clerk is not sufficient unless it is brought to the attention of the court, and the court is asked to rule on it. People v. Hornaday, 400 Ill. 361, 81 N.E.2d 168 (1948); Verlinden v. Turner, 351 Ill.App. 511, 115 N.E.2d 576 (1st Dist. 1953) (abst.). See also Richey Manufacturing Co. v. ......