People v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 11 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 51248 |
| Citation | 243 N.E.2d 551,103 Ill.App.2d 209 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freddie JACKSON, Junior, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant; James N. Gramenos, James J. Doherty, Asst. Public Defenders, Chicago, of counsel.
John J. Stamos, State's Atty., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Elmer C. Kissane, James S. Veldman, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel.
Offense charged
Rape. (Ill.Rev.Stat. (1963), ch. 38, § 11--1.)
JudgmentAfter a jury trial, defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a term of 20 to 40 years.
Points raised on appeal
(1) The evidence did not prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
(2) Defendant was denied a fair trial by the introduction of evidence of other crimes and of defendant's silence in the face of purported accusations.
(3) The mitigation hearing was inadequate.
(4) The sentence was excessive.
She was nineteen years old and a second-year student at the University of Chicago, living on campus and employed part time in the University art library located on the fourth floor of Goodspeed Hall. She brought some lunch with her to work, and never left the building to go out for lunch.
On Sunday, May 16, 1965, she went to the library at 1:00 P.M. and opened it for the use of any students who might care to study there. Being Sunday, there was no one in the building except three or four girls studying in the library.
After working for about twenty minutes, she left the library for the nearest women's rest room, which was on the second floor. While descending the stairs, she noticed a negro man, whom she had never seen before (later identified in court as defendant), ascending the stairs from the first floor. Thinking his presence there strange on a Sunday afternoon, she decided that if he were going to the library, she should be there to attend it. She asked him what he was doing there. He replied by asking if the library were open. She said yes, and ascended the stairs with him, inquiring if she might be of assistance. As she passed ahead of defendant, he grabbed her from behind, put his hand tightly over her mouth and nose, and produced a knife which he held in front of her eyes. The blade of the knife was thin and pointed and about a foot long. Defendant was approximately six feet tall and weighed about 190 pounds. She was five feet, five inches tall and weighed 117 pounds.
With his hand over her mouth, defendant then forced her down the stairs to the second floor and into the women's rest room, the whole time holding the knife in front of her so she could see it, and warning her not to scream. He told her that if she did what he told her to do, he wouldn't hurt her. Then he forced her into a toilet stall and locked the door behind him. He started to unbutton her blouse, so, to avoid injury, she removed her blouse and skirt. He then placed the knife in his belt and forced her to submit to two different oralgenital acts. Again he drew the knife to force her cooperation, and told her to keep her eyes closed so she wouldn't remember him. At that point, a woman entered the washroom, and the defendant put his feet up on the toilet seat so that his presence would not be observed. When the woman left, defendant again displayed the knife, and had intercourse with the prosecutrix. After the act, she dressed, and he told her not to report the incident to the police because he knew where she worked and he would return to harm her. He then asked for her telephone number. Being afraid not to do what he said, she gave him the dormitory number where she lived, knowing that the one number was for about 300 girls. Defendant told her to remain in the rest room for five minutes, and he then left. During the whole incident she couldn't help shaking from fright, but she never cried out for help as she knew it would do no good with only three girls two flights upstairs and he with a knife. Also she was afraid of getting hurt and she wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. He warned her that if she told the police he would be back, because he knew where she worked.
At defendant's direction, she stayed in the rest room for five minutes after he left and then returned to the library, where she confided in a friend, Judy Lichtenstein, her experience with defendant. Prosecutrix was afraid to call the police, so Miss Lichtenstein then phoned the police. Later that day, prosecutrix described defendant and the incident to the police, and went to the hospital where she was given a smear test.
Five days later, it was discovered that she had gonorrhea and she was hospitalized for two weeks because of it. She next saw defendant on June 3, 1965, while in the hospital. She identified him from his appearance and his voice.
She was a student at the University of Chicago who had known the prosecutrix for two or three years, as they both worked in the library. On May 16, 1965, she was at the art library with the prosecutrix at 1:00 P.M., when it opened. At about 1:15 to 1:30 she saw the prosecutrix leave, and at about 2:00 o'clock she saw her return, pale, nervous, and shaking. The prosecutrix then pulled her aside and asked her if she had seen a man of the defendant's description with a knife. She was then told what had happened in the women's washroom. She immediately called the police, who arrived within a few minutes.
On June 3, 1965, at approximately 9:00 P.M., he investigated a report that a man was seen in the washroom of the Harper Library of the University of Chicago. There had been three or four rapes in the vicinity, and there were three or four fellows the police were looking for. Defendant fitted the description of one of the assailants, so they arrested him when they saw him in the hallway of the library, and defendant had no reasonable explanation as to what he was doing there. He searched defendant and found a pocket knife. That evening he took defendant to the hospital where the prosecutrix positively identified defendant, who said nothing at that time.
He joined Officer Hills when defendant was first arrested at the Harper Library, which is about 250 feet from the art library. He later returned to homicide headquarters where he interrogated defendant. Defendant denied raping or having sexual intercourse with prosecutrix. He refused to answer as to whether he knew the prosecutrix.
On June 4, 1965, he accompanied defendant to defendant's apartment. Upon searching the apartment, he found a bottle of pills with a prescription dated 5--12--65. Defendant stated that it was medicine he was taking for treatment of venereal disease.
He is a licensed doctor. He first saw prosecutrix the day following the alleged attack. He examined the notes of the examining physician who had seen her in the emergency room. He saw her several more times until she was hospitalized after diagnosis of gonorrhea. The examination on May 17, 1965, was too early to disclose the disease, but he expressed the opinion that the development of the disease was compatible with her having received the infection at the time of the alleged attack.
Lillian Kane, for the defense
She is supervisor of the medical records department at the University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics. The records show that the prosecutrix was examined at 2:50 P.M. on May 16, 1965; that she was found to be infected with gonorrhea on May 26; and that she was hospitalized from May 30 through June 4. The prosecutrix was seen again at the Clinic on the 7th, 11th and 16th of June.
Defendant was first seen on May 12, 1965, and an examination revealed an impression of gonococcal urethritis. No treatment was shown on May 12. His next examination was on May 19. A finding was made of myalgia, and he was referred to the employees' health service. There was no further record of defendant.
Freddie Jackson, Jr., defendant, on his own behalf
He was born in Jacksonville, Florida, and came to Chicago in 1965 at the age of twenty-two. On May 7, 1965, he began to work as an animal technician for the University of Chicago. He first met the prosecutrix in the park during his lunch hour two days later (a week before the alleged offense), and they had a short conversation. A few days later, they met again at a shop where he bought lunch. She was in a hurry, so she gave him her telephone number. He called, but could not remember her last name; so the dormitory switchboard could not connect him.
He had seen a girl, who is now his fiancee, on the evening of May 15 at her home, as he had done four or more times during the week he had been working for the university.
On May 16, by prearrangement, he met the prosecutrix on the stairway of Goodspeed Hall at approximately 11:30 in the morning. They met on the second floor and began talking. She pulled him to the stairway landing, holding his hand. This led to kissing and necking, and she was pleased. Finally, they went to the women's rest room on the second floor, where she consented to and cooperated in an act of intercourse with defendant. He denied that he had shown her the knife which he had, and denied the use of any threats or force. While they were having intercourse, someone entered the washroom and the prosecutrix signaled him to be quiet. After the act, he told her that he had gonorrhea and that he wanted her to get a check-up. She became quite upset over the fact that he might have infected her. She called him a 'nigger' and said, 'You niggers are all alike.'
Charles Pace, for the defense
He is also an animal technician at the University of Chicago. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Davis
...28 Ill.App.3d 599, 604, 329 N.E.2d 23; People v. Longstreet (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 874, 880-81, 320 N.E.2d 529; People v. Jackson (1968), 103 Ill.App.2d 209, 222, 243 N.E.2d 551, cert. denied (1969), 397 U.S. 957, 90 S.Ct. 948, 25 L.Ed.2d 142; McCormick, Evidence § 190, at 448 (2d ed. 1972);......
-
People v. Genus
...for fixing the amount of force required for rape exists and each case must be considered on its own facts (People v. Jackson (1968), 103 Ill.App.2d 209, 243 N.E.2d 551, Cert. denied (1970), 397 U.S. 957, 90 S.Ct. 948, 25 L.Ed.2d 142), it has been noted that such actual or threatened force a......
-
People v. Barksdale
...police station after having been with the defendant some weeks earlier constitutes evidence of another crime. (See People v. Jackson, 103 Ill.App.2d 209, 243 N.E.2d 551.) However, evidence of other crimes is admissible for a number of purposes including that of identifying the defendant. (P......
-
People v. Garriott
...and would result in the victim's life being endangered as here where the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon. People v. Jackson, 103 Ill.App.2d 209, 243 N.E.2d 551, cert. denied 397 U.S. 957, 90 S.Ct. 948, 25 L.Ed.2d The presence of a deadly weapon has also been held to relieve the vic......