People v. McKinnie
| Decision Date | 24 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 18270.,18270. |
| Citation | 160 N.E. 121,328 Ill. 631 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. McKINNIE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Sangamon County; E. S. Smith, Judge.
George E. McKinnie was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and he brings error.
Affirmed.John G. Friedmeyer and Scott & Scott, all of Springfield, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Fullenwider, State's Atty., and Merrill F. Wehmhoff, both of Springfield (J. M. Weldon and L. E. Sullivan, both of Springfield, of counsel), for the People.
George E. McKinnie was indicted in the circuit court of Sangamon county for assault with intent to rape Emma Requarth. A jury trial resulted in a conviction and sentenceto the Southern Illinois Penitentiary at Chester. McKinnie prosecutes this writ of error for a review of the record.
The prosecution's evidence shows that on November 12, 1926, Emma Requarth, a married woman upwards of 45 years of age, and a resident of the city of Springfield, went to Oak Ridge Cemetery to decorate her son's grave; that she arrived at the east gate of the cemetery about noon, walked to the new or western part of the grounds, where her son was buried, changed the flowers on his grave, and, after stopping there a few minutes, crossed a road to a hill in close proximity, intending to go to her father's grave, which is located near the entrance to the cemetery; that when she passed over the hill, about 12:30 or 12:45 p. m., and was about a third of the way down on the opposite side, she heard a voice calling from behind, ‘Lady, I have lost a grave and cannot find it;’ that Mrs. Requarth, turning to the inquirer, who was a man, asked, that the man replied, ‘The name is Clark;’ and Mrs. Requarth answered, ‘No, sir; I don't know anybody by that name;’ that he then grabbed her, threw her to the ground, face downward, and was immediately astride her body; that she screamed, and he put his hand on her mouth and said, and struck her on the head; that she screamed a second time, and he struck her again; that when she screamed the third time he took from his pocket a tool which looked like a file and struck her on the head with it, causing her to bleed; that he did not disturb her clothing, and when he discovered that she was injured he said, that he then assisted her and picked up her hat, glasses, pocketbook, and a package of grass seed which had fallen to the ground and gave them to her; that she asked, ‘Why don't you take my pocketbook and let me alone?’ and without answering the question he said, ‘Please come and get in my car and I will take you anywhere you want to go;’ that he then dragged her to the front of his automobile, and as he did so the blood from her head trickled down on his coat or sweater, which was of a tannish brown color; that, as he went to open the west door of his automobile she discovered that the car bore Illinois license No. 900-822 for the year 1926; that he again requested her to enter his car and inquired where she wanted to go, and she answered she was on her way to her father's grave; that he then repeated that he would take her anywhere she wished to go, but that she replied, ‘No sir; please let me alone; you go your way and I will go mine;’ that she again asked why he did not take her pocketbook and leave her; that he then jumped into his car and drove away at high speed, and that, as the car, which was a Chevrolet coupé, was leaving, she again saw its license number. Mrs. Requarth further testified that after the car left she started down the hill, screaming for help, and soon attracted the attention of R. J. Biernbaum, the superintendent of the cemetery, and some of the employees under him; that she told Biernbaum what had happened and gave him the license number of the car, which had disappeared; that she was assisted into Biernbaum's automobile, and at her request was taken to the home of Mrs. Smith, a friend, who lived just outside of the cemetery gate; that later she was removed to the Springfield Hospital, where she remained a week, and that the plaintiff in error was brought into her presence at the hospital and she identified him as the man who attacked her. Of the apparel worn by the plaintiff in error at the time of the assault, Mrs. Requarth identified only his sweater, for she had taken no notice of his hat, cap, or trousers.
R. J. Biernbaum, the superintendent of the cemetery, corroborated the testimony of Mrs. Requarth with reference to what occurred at and after the time she attracted his attention by her screams. Immediately after he took her to Mrs. Smith's home, he reported the crime to the police. He also gave them the license number of the automobile that had disappeared.
James McInerney, a police officer who was present at the police station when Biernbaum made his report, testified that he and Officer George Pehlman ascertained that automobile license No. 900-822 had been issued to Edwin E. McKinnie, 331 South Douglas avenue, Springfield; that they, the two officers, proceeded to that street number and asked McKinnie, with whom Officer Pehlman was acquainted, to see the automobile; that as they passed to the rear of the house they saw a Chevrolet coupé bearing the particular license number; that upon inquiry McKinnie told them the plaintiff in error was his son, and that the latter had taken the car out earlier in the day; that, after obtaining information that the plaintiff in error had gone to Williamsville, a village about 10 miles northeast of Springfield, the officers went there in search of him, but, failing to find him, they returned to Springfield, and arrived at his father's house at about 5 o'clock; that as they approached the house a Ford automobile bearing a Michigan license number was driven upon the premises and stopped near the garage, and the plaintiff in error alighted from the car; that the officers questioned him concerning his apparel when he drove his father's automobile about noon of that day, and he told them he then wore light trousers and a brownish colored coat or jacket; that the officers took him first to the police station, and later, dressed in the clothes worn, as he stated, while driving his father's car at noon, to Mrs. Requarth at the hospital; that, after Officer Pehlman had asked her some questions, the plaintiff in error was returned to the police station; and that three days later he was again taken to the hospital, when Mrs. Requarth identified him as her assailant.
George Pehlman, the other police officer, corroborated Officer McInerney's testimony concerning the identification of the automobile license number, their visit to Edwin E. McKinnie's home and inquiry about the use of the Chevrolet coupé, their trip to Williamsville and return to the elder McKinnie's home, their questioning the plaintiff in error about the clothes he wore earlier in the day, their two trips to the hospital, and Mrs. Requarth's identification of the plaintiff in error on the second trip. The sweater or coat which she said he wore at the time he attacked her was admitted in evidence.
Five witnesses appeared in behalf of the plaintiff in error: Lucy McKinnie, his mother; Edwin E. McKinnie, his father; Harriet J. McKinnie, his grandmother; Lena Robertson, a servant in the home of his aunt; and the plaintiff in error himself. Lucy McKinnie testified that on November 12, 1926, at about noon, she was at the home of her sister, who was then very ill; that in response to a request over the telephone her husband called in his Chevrolet coupé and she returned home with him, reaching there shortly after 1 o'clock, when she found the plaintiff in error in the kitchen, and that shortly afterwards her son left in his Ford car, stating that he was going to Williamsville. The witness further testified that in the morning of the same day she had instructed the plaintiff in error to go to Oak Ridge Cemetery to remove the dead flowers from her brother's grave, and that she knew he had carried out her instructions, because she found upon investigation that he had done so.
Edwin E. McKinnie testified that his son left home during the forenoon of November 12, 1926, in the Chevrolet automobile, to get a cap for some part of the oiling mechanism of his (the son's) Ford car; that he returned at 12:30...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
... ... See People v. Ciucci (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting portions of blood-stained sheet, pillowcase and pillow to go to jury room; exhibits were part of the res gestae in murder case); People v. McKinnie (1928), 328 Ill. 631, 160 N.E. 121 (not error to permit blood-stained sweater of defendant to go to jury room; no objection); People v. Cimino (1947), 330 Ill.App. 461, 71 N.E.2d 541 (abstract) (no abuse of discretion to permit torn and blood-stained clothing to be taken into jury room in assault ... ...
-
People v. Kessler
... ... A correct instruction upon the same subject was given at the request of the prosecution, and repetition was unnecessary. It is not error to refuse an instruction the substance of which has been given in another. [333 Ill. 460]People v. McKinnie, 328 Ill. 631, 160 N. E. 121;People v. Cash, 326 Ill. 104, 157 N. E. 76;People v. Mason, 301 Ill. 370, 133 N. E. 767; People v. Andrews, supra. The other refused instruction contained the statement, The court instructs the jury that a verdict of not guilty means no more than this: That the guilt of ... ...
- Keller v. Joseph
-
People v. Meyers
... ... It is not necessary to prove an express intent where assault is proved, as in this case. Intent may be inferred from the acts of the defendant during the assault. People v. Maher, supra; People v. Canonica, 370 Ill. 441, 19 N.E.2d 334;People v. McKinnie, 328 Ill. 631, 160 N.E. 121. Though plaintiff in error testified he had no recollection of anything that happened after he got into the rear seat of the automobile, there is opposed to that testimony the undisputed testimony that he drove the car without showing evidence [44 N.E.2d 873]of ... ...