People v. Krotz
| Citation | 341 Ill. 214,172 N.E. 135 |
| Decision Date | 25 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 20094.,20094. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. KROTZ. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Commissioner's Opinion.
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Harry B. Miller, Judge.
Charles G. Krotz was convicted of statutory rape, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Louis Greenberg, John J. Enright, Edward H. Enright, and Hyman Feldman, all of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., and Merrill F. Wehmhoff, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and John Holman, both of Chicago, of counsel) for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Charles G. Krotz (herein referred to as the defendant), was found guilty by a jury in the criminal court of Cook county of a statutory rape on Iris E. Darnell, a female under sixteen years of age. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for ninety-nine years, and the case comes to this court on a writ of error.
Iris E. Darnell testified that she lived in Broadview, in Cook county, from November, 1926, to September, 1928, when she moved with her parents to Melrose Park; that she was twelve years old; that she had never been married to defendant; and that she was in the sixth grade at school. She had known defendant for about one year while she lived with her parents in a flat in the rear of the flat of defendant, in Broadview. He was nice to her for about a year and gave her money and candy, sent her notes, and came to school to see her. The first time he came to school was in the fall of 1927, when he took her for a ride around the block. The second time he took her to a lane in Maywood, told her how babies were made, and put his hands on her privates. Three days later he took her for a ride to the same place in Maywood, said he would show her the real thing about how babies were made, and then had intercourse with her. He took her riding another time on Mannheim road and had intercourse with her. During the summer of 1928 she received a note from him just before a picnic. At the picnic her father asked defendant about the note. Defendant promised he would not do anything wrong and asked her father not to tell any one. In May, 1928, she visited her aunt. She saw defendant, who took her for a walk and kissed her. In August, 1928, she worked for Mrs. Snyder, in Oak Park, and on August 15 defendant took her for a ride. On August 20, 1928, at 8:30 p. m., at Mrs. Snyder's house, he had intercourse with her on the landing leading to the basement. On August 27, 1928, at Mrs. Hart's she sat up with defendant all night. He was arrested on May 7, 1928, for taking indecent liberties with her, and after he was arrested he asked her if she was going to testify against him. He saw her six times after his arrest and had intercourse with her once. In May, 1928, she first told about these acts of the defendant. She identified two letters received by her from the defendant, which were introduced in evidence.
A man by the name of Neely testified that the prosecuting witness is his niece; that she visited at his house a short time; and that he saw defendant kiss her on an ‘L’ platform, in Oak Park.
P. R. Darnell testified that he is the father of the prosecuting witness. He made complaint against defendant on May 7, 1928, for taking indecent liberties with his daughter. At a picnic he talked to defendant about a note which defendant had written to the prosecuting witness, and he asked the witness to forgive him. The prosecuting witness visited at her uncle's home, and in August, 1928, she worked for Mrs. Snyder, in Oak Park. On cross-examination this witness admitted that after he had made complaint against defendant he told him that if he had $300 he could get away; that the witness would settle for $300.
Dr. Minnie O. Perlstein, an assistant city physician of the juvenile court, testified that on October 2, 1928 she examined the prosecuting witness and found the hymen was ruptured; that there was no vaginal discharge and no evidence of pregnancy.
Neither of the two letters written by defendant to the prosecuting witness was dated, but both were written after his arrest. The first one is as follows:
The second letter is as follows:
Defendant testified that he was thirty-eight years old; that in 1927 and 1928 the prosecuting witness lived with her father and mother in the rear flat of a building owned by him in Broadview; that he was friendly with the family until he was arrested in May, 1928, for taking indecent liberties with the prosecuting witness. He denied having taken indecent liberties with her or having taken intercourse with her or having seen her at Mrs. Snyder's house. He testified that her father offered to have the case against him dismissed for $500 and later for $300.
The questioin of the weight of the evidence is not argued by defendant. It is not contended generally that the evidence, if true, does not support the verdict and judgment. The only contention in this regard is that the evidence does not show that there was penetration. The prosecuting witness testified to three acts of intercourse. As to the last occasion, at the home of Mrs. Snyder, she was questioned as follows: ‘Did he put his privates in your privates?’ And she answered, ‘I don't remember.’ She was then asked, ‘Well, did he?’ and the answer was: ‘Oh, yes; he did put it in and let the charge run on the steps.’ In People v. Schultz, 260 Ill. 35, 102 N. E. 1045, it was held that proof of slight penetration is sufficient, and that fact may be shown by circumstantial evidence. In that case the proof was not as strong as it is in this case and it was held sufficient to submit the case to the jury. When the evidence of the prosecuting witness is considered in connection with the evidence of Dr. Perlstein, it was sufficient to prove penetration.
It is insisted by defendant that the bill of exceptions shows that the prosecuting witness was not sworn before she testified, therefore her testimony is of no force and effect and is not entitled to any consideration by this court. This contention is not sustained by the record. It is apparent that the original bill of exceptions was not all preparedby the same person nor was it all written on the same typewriter. With the exception of the evidence of the prosecuting witness, her father, and Neely, who were the first three witnesses called on behalf of the people, the evidence of all of the other witnesses is in regular from. It shows that the witnesses were sworn, in whose behalf they testified, and each question and answer is given in detail. That is not the case as to the first three witnesses. In the bill of exceptions as originally prepared the evidence of the first three witnesses contained no heading except the name of the witness. From the evidence of the proseucting witness was omitted her testimony that she was twelve years old, that she was never married to defendant, that she lived in Broadview from 1926 to September, 1927, and that the venue of the case was in Cook county. All of these omissions were interlined with pen and ink. The original bill of exceptions does not contain the questions and answers of these first three witnesses, but it merely relates in narrative form the substance of their evidence. We refer to these facts for the purpose of showing that the bill of exceptions was not carefully prepared in the usual and customary way. As originally prepared it contained omissions of evidentiary facts, which, if not supplied, would have been fatal to the case of the people. Some of these omissions were supplied. The careless manner in which the bill of exceptions was prepared has some bearing in determining whether there was a sufficient showing that the prosecuting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilcoxon v. United States
...Being present, it was the duty of appellant and his attorneys to take notice of the several steps in the proceeding. People v. Krotz, 341 Ill. 214, 172 N.E. 135; Smith v. State, 81 Ga. 479, 8 S.E. 187. And that duty included notice of the manner in which the oath was administered to the wit......
-
People v. Dixon
...282;People v. Mundro, 326 Ill. 324, 157 N.E. 167. Sentences of 99 years in the penitentiary have likewise been sustained. People v. Krotz, 341 Ill, 214, 172 N.E. 135;People v. Fog, 385 Ill. 389, 52 N.E.2d 699. In the Fog case, certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. 327 U.......
-
Sewall v. Spinney Creek Oyster Co., Inc.
...the regularity of the proceedings was presumed. E. g., In re Simmons Children, 154 W.Va. 491, 177 S.E.2d 19 (1970); People v. Krotz, 341 Ill. 214, 172 N.E. 135 (1930). In the present circumstances, then, where (1) the statute expressly requires that the witnesses be sworn, (2) the record is......
-
Frank v. Hawkins
...cannot be reversed on that ground. Dahlin, 184 Ill.App.3d at 64, 132 Ill.Dec. 487, 539 N.E.2d at 1296, citing People v. Krotz, 341 Ill. 214, 220, 172 N.E. 135, 138 (1930). 2. The Trial Court's Finding of Abuse Was Not Against the Manifest Weight of the Respondent argues that (1) Donovan's t......