People v. Kraus
| Decision Date | 20 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 29653.,29653. |
| Citation | 395 Ill. 233,69 N.E.2d 885 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. KRAUS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Leonard C. Reid, Judge.
Joseph Jacob Kraus was convicted of the crime against nature, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
A. Jefferson Schultze, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and William J. Tuohy, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Joseph A. Pope, Melvin S. Rembe, and W. S. Mirowslawski, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
On a trial in the criminal court of Cook county without a jury plaintiff in error was found guilty of the ‘crime against nature.’ After an application for probation and motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied, a judgment was entered committing plaintiff in error to the penitentiary for a term of years of not less than five nor more than seven. A writ of error has been sued out of this court to review the record of his conviction. The errors relied on for reversal are that the court improperly admitted a confession in evidence and permitted the People to prove the commission of other offenses.
Plaintiff in error, who was 48 years of age, had known Curtis McDowell, a boy of 13 years of age, and his parents for several years prior to the time in question. On August 5, 1945, he was visiting at their home and shortly after noon he and the McDowell boy left in plaintiff in error's automobile. Later in the afternoon Steve L. Weber, a police officer in the village of Skokie, saw the automobile parked on a public highway and on investigation found plaintiff in error and the boy in the back seat. Plaintiff in error denied the commission of any wrongful act and claimed he had stopped to repair a mechanical defect in the automobile but the boy told the officer what plaintiff in error was doing. The depravity of the acts described forbids their detail here. Both went to the police station with the officer, and there, in the presence of Weber and W. C. Griffin, captain of police, plaintiff in error confessed his guilt, and the statement in question was signed by plaintiff in error in the presence of the two officers. On the trial officer Weber testified on direct examination to the circumstances under which the confession had been made and identified the signatures thereon. On cross-examination, he denied that there was any striking or beating of plaintiff in error, but admitted that on one occasion he ‘pushed him.’ The captain of police did not testify nor was his absence explained.
Plaintiff in error testified that he was first taken into the office of the police station in the afternoon, that Weber struck him repeatedly across the face with his hand and that one blow dislodged a tooth. He further stated that after the occurrence in the afternoon he was taken downstairs and placed in a cell, that sometime during the night while he was half dizzy and half asleep, they took him from the cell to the office and that he answered all questions asked him, as he says,
In the presentation of his objection to the introduction of the confession in evidence, plaintiff in error contends the court should not have admitted it without hearing the evidence of Captain Griffin who was present when the confession was made, and secondly, that the evidence does not show it was voluntarily made.
When an objection is made to the introduction of a confession on the ground that it was not voluntarily made, the burden of making such proof rests on the People. People v. Arendarczyk, 367 Ill. 534, 12 N.E.2d 2. In this case the People in making their case in chief introduced the evidence of officer Weber showing the circumstances surrounding the making of the confession. It established a prima facie case for its admission. The written confession was offered, but on objection the court withheld a ruling to give plaintiff in error an opportunity to present his evidence. After he had completed his evidence in chief without covering the circumstances under which the confession had been made, the court ruled that the confession be admitted in evidence. Thereafter, plaintiff in error was given an opportunity to testify to his version of the making of the confession. However, the court did not change its ruling.
It is contended on behalf of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial