People v. Pavluk

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WILSON
• Citation: People v. Pavluk, 386 Ill. 492, 54 N.E.2d 567 (Ill. 1944)
• Decision Date: 11 May 1944
• Docket Number: No. 27567.,27567.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. PAVLUK.

386 Ill. 492

54 N.E.2d 567

PEOPLE

v.PAVLUK.

No. 27567.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 21, 1944.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 11, 1944.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Donald S. McKinlay, Judge.

Peter Pavluk was convicted of manslaughter under an indictment charging him with murder by abortion, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

GUNN, J., dissenting.James E. Daniels and Cameron Latter, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, and Joseph A. Pope, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

WILSON, Justice.

The defendant, Peter Pavluk, was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury in the criminal court of Cook county under an indictment charging him with the murder, by abortion, of Margaret Martin. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, and defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for an indeterminate term of from one to fourteen years. He prosecutes this writ of error.

Defendant, a physician and surgeon since 1931, forty-four years of age, maintained his office and residence at 5425 South Halsted street, Chicago. It is admitted that on September 8, 1942, he treated Margaret Martin, unmarried, twenty-two years of age, at his office, and, the next evening visited her professionally at the apartment of a friend and fellow-employee, Mildred Buck, 4710 Kenmore avenue. Margaret Martin died Thursday morning, September 10, and defendant was arrested and charged with responsibility for her death. The evidence discloses that on September 6 she visited Mildred Buck and, after announcing she was pregnant, solicited her friend's aid in procuring a doctor. September 8, Mildred Buck's husband, Woodrow, a stock yards employee, after an interview with defendant, an acquaintance, informed Margaret Martin he had arranged an appointment with defendant who had stated the price would be ‘around thirty dollars.’ Margaret Martin, her sister, Mary Jupin, and Buck arrived at defendant's office about nine o'clock Tuesday evening, September 8. Margaret Martin was invited into his inner office, and the door closed. Buck and Mary Jupin remained in a waiting room. Buck testified that shortly thereafter he heard and expression of pain; that, within five or ten minutes, Margaret Martin emerged, stating defendant required her home address, and that she did not want her mother to know; that, at this juncture, he, Buck, repaired to a tavern, telephoned his wife and obtained permission for Margaret Martin to come home with him; that, upon him return, after fifteen or twenty minutes, she was prepared to leave, and that he then furnished defendant his home address and telephone number, defendant promising to visit the patient the next evening.

Mary Jupin testified that about ten minutes after Margaret Martin entered defendant's inner office, she heard her scream; that her sister came out to the waiting room shortly thereafter and defendant gave her a pill and a glass of water; that she was shaky, very pale and crying; that Margaret Martin remained with her about ten minutes; that, during this period, defendant made two or three trips to the rear of his office with a little pan; that when her sister returned to the inner office, defendant came to the door and invited witness to enter, but that she refused; that about ten minutes later she again heard Margaret scream; that she entered the room shortly afterward and found her sister, shaky and nervous, on a table, and that defendant's wife, who was also present, declared, ‘Oh, everything will be all right. You have nothing to worry about.’ Mary Jupin further testified that as they were preparing to leave, defendant stated there would not be any danger, adding, ‘I opened her up good. Everything is going to be all right. Of course, she will have pains, that is well understood,’ that he advised her sister to keep walking back and forth, to frequent the washroom and to force herself; that he said he had ‘packed her up good;’ that defendant promised to visit Margaret the following day; and that prior to leaving defendant's office she, Mary Jupin, paid him thirty dollars. Mary Jupin added that she was at Buck's residence the following evening, when defendant arrived; that Margaret informed him she could not sleep because of abdominal pains; that he reassured her such pains were to be expected, and that everything would be all right after the packing was removed.

Dr. Samuel A. Levinson, chief pathologist to the coroner of Cook county, testified to making a post-mortem examination of the body of Margaret Martin September 11, 1942, in the Cook county morgue. He testified he found many evidences of pregnancy; that there was an opening or tear in the front part of the uterus, immediately above the cervix, and that this tear communicated with the uterine canal, which contained some of the afterbirth, and that the lacerations near the opening of the cervix were traumatic, the result of instrumentation. He expressed the opinion that Margaret Martin died as a result of perforation of a pregnant uterus with an extravasation of foetal parts and blood into the abdominal cavity, the bones and organs of the newly forming baby, which should be in the uterine canal, being located lying in the abdominal cavity.

Two statements, made by defendant in the State's Attorney's office shortly after his arrest on September 10, 1942, were introduced in evidence, by stipulation and without objection, as People's Exhibits 1 and 1A. In the first, obtained at 1:25 p. m., defendant stated that ten dollars was the entire amount received from the patient September 8; that, in his treatment, only two instruments were used, a speculum and a uterine tenaculum forceps, and that because he suggestedhospitalization, no regular patient's card was filled out, declaring she was the first patient for whom no such record had been made. In the second statement, People's Exhibit 1A, taken at 5:10 p. m., defendant stated he wished to change his previous statement as to his fee, and admitted receipt of thirty dollars, ten dollars being for office treatment, and twenty dollars for home visit. He also admitted probing the uterus in his original examination September 8.

Eight witnesses, one a physician and surgeon, testified to defendant's good reputation as a law-abiding citizen. Anna Pavluk, wife of defendant, testified she was present about four or five minutes during Margaret Martin's visit to his office September 8; that she noticed bleeding prior to his examination; that she saw defendant use but one instrument, a speculum, and that the portion of the treatment witnessed by her consisted of cleansing.

Defendant testified in detail as to his treatment the evening of September 8; in particular, that when Margaret Martin arrived at his office he filled out a regular index card containing her name, stated by her to be Marilyn Smith, her age, given as twenty-one, and her menstrual history; that she gave her address as 4710 North Kenmore avenue; that nothing was said concerning pregnancy; that she asserted she was unmarried, and denied having relations with men. He stated that, owing to her nervous and irritable condition, he administered morphine. Further, he explained he found his patient to be bleeding; that a bimanual examination disclosed nothing indicative of pregnancy; that, in his subsequent examination, he used a speculum, a tenaculum, and a uterine forceps and did not place any probe or instrument of any kind into the uterus itself; that his treatment consisted primarily of cleansing and the insertion of a...