People v. Meyers
| Decision Date | 18 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 26852.,26852. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MEYERS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Boone County; William L. Pierce, Judge.
Frank R. Meyers was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, and he brings error.
Judgment affirmed.B. Jay Knight, of Rockford, for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Alexander J. Strom, State's Atty., of Belvidere, for the People.
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the circuit court of Boone county of assault with intent to commit rape. At the time of his indictment he was 19 years of age. He was indicted jointly with Joseph Sullivan and Evan J. Woodworth. Separate trials were granted to the last-named codefendants. The indictment consists of two counts, the first count charging forcible rape against one Dorothy R. Terry, and the second count charged assault with intent to commit rape on the same complaining witness. Change of venue was sought from Boone county. Motion and affidavits in support thereof were filed, as were counter-affidavits. The motion was denied.
The undisputed facts were that on the afternoon of January 25, 1942, plaintiff in error and six other young people approximately his age, including Sullivan and Woodworth, while driving on a street in Capron, Illinois, saw complaining witness who waved to them. The car was stopped and she and two other young women got into it, and they all drove to the home of complaining witness. From there the car with its ten occupants was driven to the village of Cheming where whisky and wine were purchased and taken to the car. From there the party went to a tavern where more liquor was purchased and consumed. From there they went to a roller-skating rink at Marengo. This consumed about three hours time. Thereafter the acts charged in the indictment are alleged to have occurred. It would serve no good purpose to detail those acts in this opinion, suffice it to say it was largely a night of liquor drinking and drunken carousal on the part of these young people.
Complaining witness testified that she was intoxicated. There is evidence that she drank excessively. There is evidence of demonstrations of affection on the part of the complaining witness toward plaintiff in error. The other two young women were taken to their homes around midnight, and all left the car except plaintiff in error, complaining witness and Sullivan and Woodworth. During this time plaintiff in error was doing practically all the driving.
After letting the other two girls out of the car near their homes, the automobile, with plaintiff in error driving and with complaining witness and Sullivan also in the front seat and Woodworth in the back seat, proceeded to a point about a mile north of Capron, where plaintiff in error stopped the car and requested Woodworth to do the driving while he entered the back seat. There is conflict in the evidence as to what took place from that time on. Complaining witness, Sullivan and Woodworth testified plaintiff in error pulled the complaining witness across the back of the front seat and into the rear seat, and that an altercation, in which blows were struck, took place; that at one point where all got out of the car the complaining witness was vomiting and later laid down on the seat of the car and plaintiff in error got in on top of her, the others remaining outside. They so remained for about fifteen minutes, after which plaintiff in error drove the car to the home of the complaining witness, took her to the door and returned to the car and drove with Sullivan and Woodworth to Belvidere.
The evidence also is that complaining witness' parents called in a physician to examine her about 2 o'clock that morning. He testified that he examined her and found her face swollen, black and blue, her lips cut, a tooth broken off, and that examination of her private parts showed them to be sore and bloody. There was evidence of marked lacerations. He gave his opinion, as an expert, that the condition he found there could have been caused by the crime of rape. He testified he did not smell any whisky about complaining witness.
Plaintiff in error testified that he consumed large quantities of liquor, and from the time he got into the rear seat of the car north of Capron with complaining witness, he did not remember anything until the sheriff of Boone county awakened him at the home of his father the next morning. His father testified as to his drunken condition.
Numerous errors are assigned but they group themselves about four questions: (1) whether the People proved the guilt of plaintiff in error beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the rulings of the court on evidence; (3) intructions to the jury, and (4) the denial of a change of venue.
In order to prove the charge of forcible rape there must be evidence to show that the act was committed by force and against the will of the female, and if she has the use of her faculties and physical powers the evidence must show such resistance as will demonstrate that the act was against her will. People v. Eccarius, 305 Ill. 62, 136 N.E. 651. There is evidence in this record to show that the complaining witness was raped against her will. There was evidence of a scuffle and blows struck. Statements made by her and by plaintiff in error at the time also indicate a rape was being attempted. The evidence also disclosed opportunity for the commission of such crime. It is not denied that complaining witness' face was bruised and swollen, her eyes blackened, her lip cut, a tooth knocked out, and her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gendron
... ... People v. Meyers, 381 Ill. 156, 44 N.E.2d 870; People v. Witte, 350 Ill. 558, 183 N.E. 622.' (People v. Berry, 37 Ill.2d 329, 331, 226 N.E.2d 591.) However, the fact of potentially harmful publicity within a community [41 Ill.2d 355] alone does not establish proof of community prejudice, as each case must be ... ...
-
People v. Fryman, 33225
...must show such resistance as demonstrates the act was against her will. People v. Tocco, 413 Ill. 305, 108 N.E.2d 762; People v. Meyers, 381 Ill. 156, 44 N.E.2d 870. However, the question of credibility of witnesses is for the jury, and the fact that the jury believed the testimony of prose......
-
People v. Taylor
... ... Among the authorities cited are People v. Faulisi, 25 Ill.2d 457, 185 N.E.2d 211 (1962); People v. Rossililli, 24 Ill.2d 341, 181 N.E.2d 114 (1962); People v. Meyers, 381 Ill. 156, 44 N.E.2d 870 (1942); and People v. Szybeko, 24 Ill.2d 335, 181 N.E.2d 176. In People v. Faulisi, it is said (25 Ill.2d p. 461, 185 N.E.2d p. 213): ... 'When the charge is forcible rape, the fact that the act of intercourse was performed forcibly and against the will of the ... ...
-
People v. Berry
... ... when it appears there are reasonable grounds to believe that the prejudice alleged actually exists and that by reason of the prejudice there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused cannot receive a fair and impartial trial. People v. Meyers, 381 Ill. 156, 44 N.E. 870; People v. Witte, 350 Ill. 558, 183 N.E. 622 ... In applying this rule each case must be considered under its own facts. Obviously, this case is not in any way similar to the United States Supreme Court cases cited by defendant, (Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 ... ...