People v. Medrano
| Decision Date | 18 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--328,73--328 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derlis MEDRANO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Ralph Ruebner, Richard J. Wilson, Elgin, for defendant-appellant.
John J. Bowman, State's Atty., Malcolm Smith, Asst. State's Atty., Wheaton, James W. Jerz, Edward Morris, Ill. State's Attys. Ass'n., Elgin, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant herein, represented by a series of court appointed counsel, was tried by a jury and found guilty of the offenses of burglary, rape and two counts of deviate sexual conduct. He was sentenced to 10--30 years in the State penitentiary for the offense of rape.
The sole contentions in this appeal are, first, that the conviction of the defendant was void as the statute defining rape is unconstitutional as being a denial of equal protection on the basis of sex and, secondly, that the sentence is excessive. Rephrased, this contention is that the statute is unconstitutional because the Illinois statute (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, sec. 11--1) provides that only a male person may be guilty of rape and that the statute does not provide for conviction of a female for the offense of rape. It is to be expressly noted, of course, that a female may be guilty of rape as an accessory, an aider or an abettor. People v. Trumbley (1911), 252 Ill. 29, 96 N.E. 573.
The facts herein are that on October 8, 1972 the complaining witness, separated from her husband, resided with her four small children in her residence in Wood Dale, Illinois. She was awakened by a man who said, 'Shut up, lady, or I will kill you and I will kill the kid.' Her 6 year old child was sleeping in the same room with her. The man, subsequently identified by the complaining witness as the defendant, made the complaining witness waken her son and put him out of the room. The defendant then put a pillowcase over the head of the complaining witness and, with a knife to her back, again told her to shut up or he would 'go get your girls.' The other three children of the complaining witness, aged 6, 8 and 13, were asleep in the other bedrooms. The defendant then raped the complaining witness, slapped her across the face, then placed his penis in the complaining witness' mouth. After committing other deviate sexual acts, which would serve no purpose to detail, he then placed his penis in the complaining witness' rectum. After the threats as to the daughters of the complaining witness, she stated that she would do anything if he would leave the alone and he then proceeded to rape her the second time, followed by a third rape in a different position.
The argument as to the unconstitutionality of the Illinois rape statute was not argued in the trial court, nor was it presented in post trial motion. The only allegation as to the unconstitutionality of the statute was a statement by the defendant, Medrano, at the sentencing hearing where he stated, While we do not feel that the question of the constitutionality of the statute in question was sufficiently raised in the trial court, nonetheless, we will consider the same.
In People v. Ellis (1974), 57 Ill.2d 127 at 131, 311 N.E.2d 98 at 100, the Supreme Court of Illinois has stated there were two standards of review to be employed in testing the validity of statutory classifications. 'The basic standard, permissive review, permits classifications which are rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective (People ex rel. City of Salem v. McMackin, 53 Ill.2d 347, 363, 291 N.E.2d 807) and the burden is on the party challenging the validity of the classification to prove that it is arbitrary.' The second standard as pointed out by the court, with relation to statutes which differentiate between individuals raises the 'active review standard' where the burden is on the State to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rivera
...v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181, 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 935, 95 S.Ct. 1143, 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975); People v. Medrano, 24 Ill.App.3d 429, 321 N.E.2d 97 (1974); State v. Price, 215 Kan. 718, 529 P.2d 85 (1974); State v. Ewald, 63 Wis.2d 165, 216 N.W.2d 213 Appellant claims that b......
-
People v. Reilly
...child . . .' To the same effect: See, People of the State of Colorado v. Gould, Colo., 532 P.2d 953; People of the State of Illinois v. Medrano, 24 Ill.App.3d 429, 321 N.E.2d 97; Brooks v. State of Maryland, 24 Md.App. 334, 330 A.2d Similar constitutional contentions raised to invalidate pr......
-
Green v. Wyrick
...670 (1975); State v. Price, 215 Kan. 718, 529 P.2d 85 (1975); Finley v. State, 527 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); People v. Medrano, 24 Ill.App.3d 429, 321 N.E.2d 97 (1974); State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181, 526 P.2d 720 (1974); State v. Ewald, 63 Wis.2d 165, 216 N.W.2d 213 (1974); State v. Dra......
-
Country v. Parratt
...670 (1975); State v. Price, 215 Kan. 718, 529 P.2d 85 (1974); Finley v. State, 527 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); People v. Medrano, 24 Ill.App.3d 429, 321 N.E.2d 97 (1974); State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181, 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 935, 95 S.Ct. 1143, 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975); ......