People v. Polak
| Decision Date | 11 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 22902.,22902. |
| Citation | 360 Ill. 440,196 N.E. 513 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. POLAK et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Harry B. Miller, Judge.
Frank Polak and Harry Kmak, otherwise called Harry Kushemba, were convicted of rape, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
John J. Rericha and Eugene L. McGarry, both of Chicago (Elwyn E. Long, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, Henry E. Seyfarth, and Amos P. Scruggs, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Frank Polak and Harry Kmak, otherwise called Harry Kushemba (hereinafter called the defendants), were found guilty in the criminal court of Cook county by the verdict of a jury of having committed rape upon Sylvia Drank, a female twenty-one years of age, and the punishment was fixed at one year in the penitentiary. To reverse the judgment entered on the verdict the defendants bring the record here for review on writ of error.
The acts of sexual intercourse are admitted by the defendants. They contend that such acts were not forcible and against the will of the prosecutrix and did not constitute the crime of rape.
The prosecutrix had been in the employ of the Illinois Bell Telephone Company in its general office for a period of six years immediately prior to the commission of the alleged offenses. She lived with her mother and sister and had been acquainted with the defendants for a period of four years, during which time she and her sister had about once a month gone with the defendants on automobile rides and to different places of amusement. The defendant Kmak usually accompanied the sister. About 9:30 p. m. of July 24, 1934, the defendants came in a Cadillac automobile to the home of the prosecutrix. The sister was attending a club meeting. A cousin, Bernice Noeth, was at the Drank home. The defendants invited Sylvia and her sister to go for a ride. Sylvia and Bernice Noeth went with the defendants to the club meeting where the sister was in attendance. She declined the invitation. From the club the parties went to the Noeth home, where the Noeth girl changed her clothes fof beach pajamas. The prosecutrix was dressed in a bicycle suit. The two couples then proceeded to Fifty-Fourth street and the lake and there rented two bicycles and rode until about 11. The weather was very warm. On leaving the bicycle stand the parties rode for a time in the automobile and then stopped at a beer tavern, where they remained until about 1 a. m., during which period, according to the testimony of the prosecutrix, they each had two glasses of beer. From the tavern the Noeth girl was taken home. The defendants and Sylvia returned to the tavern, where they each had another glass of beer. When they left the tavern on the last occasion Kmak was driving the automobile. The prosecutrix and Polak were in the rear seat. The prosecutrix stated that Kmak drove on Western avenue in the direction of her home, but failing to turn on Thirty-Fifth street, which was the street usually taken from Western avenue to her home, she asked where they were going, and one of the defendants said, ‘Well, we are going to take a ride,’ and she said, ‘It is warm; we can go just for a little ride, but I have to get up for work in the morning, so make sure we don't stay out too late.’ She stated the automobile was driven south on Western avenue to Seventy-Fourth street, where she suggested the three persons ride in the front seat of the car, but the defendant Polak objected. Later Polak began taking liberties with her, to which she remonstrated. She pushed him away from her and called to the defendant Kmak, ‘Turn around and look what Frank is doing.’ Kmak replied, ‘Well, I can't do anything about it.’ She further testified that Polak persisted in his advances, grabbed her, pulled her towards him and tore her clothing; that she began screaming and continued screaming; that the car at this time was somewhere out in the open prairie; that Polak struck her in the left jaw; that she told him to stop, but he again struck her and hit her altogether about four times in and about the face; that by this time she was exhausted; that the struggle lasted about fifteen minutes, and that he threw her on the seat and had intercourse with her. She then asked to, and did, get out of the car, the defendants both getting out at the same time. She testified that there were no houses around and no automobiles in sight. She saw no chance to escape and so told the defendants to take her home. When she got in the automobile Kmak got in with her and Polak took the driver's seat. She was crying. Kmak told her not to cry, and Polak told her that if she did not shut up he would shoot her. Kmak then opened his pants. She told him not to do that, and asked him if it was not enough that Frank had taken advantage of her. Kmak made no reply but pushed her over. She tried to push him away and screamed loudly but was so exhausted and dazed she could not keep Kmak off of her, and he forcibly pulled her legs apart and had intercourse with her. The defendants then took her to her home, arriving there about 3 a. m. She immediately reported to her sister and mother what had happened and the mother called Dr. Braune. The mother testified that she saw Sylvia about 3 a. m. at her home; that Sylvia was crying, a lip was bleeding, her left eye and the side of her left jaw were swollen, her clothes were torn, and there was blood on the bottom part of her clothing. The prosecutrix testified that she had never had sexual relations with the defendants or with any man prior to July 25.
Dr. Braune testified that he saw the prosecutrix at her home about 8 a. m. on July 25; that he was not able to go to her home when he was first called; that on that occasion he made an examination of her private organs, that he found the parts torn, lips of vagina torn, hymen ruptured, scratches on labia and blood on her undergarments. He stated that in his opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vaughn, 28334.
... ... This rule, however, does not apply where the testimony of the prosecutrix is clear and convincing. People v. Polak, 360 Ill. 440, 196 N.E. 513;People v. Sciales, 345 Ill. 118, 177 N.E. 689. Corroboration of her testimony was her complaint when she ran crying to her home from the scene of the alleged crime and complained to her father. In cases of a prosecution for rape or for an assault with an intent to commit ... ...
-
People v. Ricili
...is not necessary that she be corroborated in order to sustain a conviction. People v. Vanghn, 390 Ill. 360, 61 N.E.2d 546;People v. Polak, 360 Ill. 440, 196 N.E. 513;People v. Sciales, 345 Ill. 118,117 N.E. 689. In the Kazimierczyk and DeFrates cases the principal question involved was not ......
-
People v. De Frates
...is not necessary that she be corroborated in order to sustain a conviction. People v. Vaughn, 390 Ill. 360,60 N.E.2d 546;People v. Polak, 360 Ill. 440, 196 N.E. 513;People v. Sciales, 345 Ill. 118, 177 N.E. 689. The determination of the question whether the defendant or the prosecutrix told......
-
People v. D'Angelo, 72--233
...not necessary that she be corroborated in order to sustain a conviction.' People v. Vaughn, 390 Ill. 360, 61 N.E.2d 546; People v. Polak, 360 Ill. 440, 196 N.E. 513; People v. Sciales, 345 Ill. 118, 177 N.E. The determination of the question of whether the prosecutrix told the truth is the ......