People v. Silva
| Citation | 89 N.E.2d 800,405 Ill. 158 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 31353,31353 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SILVA. |
Frank A. McDonnell, of Chicago (William L. Carlin and Louis A. Rosenthal Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General, and John S. Boyle, State's Attorney, of Chicago (John T. Gallagher and Rudolph L. Janega, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Lupe Silva, was indicted and tried in the criminal court of Cook County for the crime of forcible rape. He entered a plea of not guilty and was tried before the court after a jury trial had been waived. He was found guilty as charged in the indictment and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of ten years. Motion for a new trial was overruled and plaintiff in error was sentenced accordingly.
It is contended the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and he urges the testimony of the prosecutrix is not corroborated and that she made no outcry.
The facts out of which this case arose are as follows:
On the morning of October 10, 1948, around 5:00 o'clock A.M., the prosecutrix, aged 19 years, left her home at 1121 South Newberry Street, Chicago, to go to the Maxwell Street Police Station, a few blocks away, to complian of a disturbance in her home brought about by her brother. After making the complaint around 5:20 A.M., she walked west from the police station about three blocks to a hamburger stand on Halsted Street, where she purchased some sandwiches, one of which she carried out to take home. She then walked west on Maxwell Street to South Peoria Street. In doing so she crossed South Newberry Street, on which her home was located. She turned north and walked on the east side of South Peoria Street toward West Roosevelt Road. Defendant's home is located on the same side and in the same block of South Peoria Street. Prosecutrix testified that as she approached West Roosevelt Road, a man whom she did not know, but who is now identified as the defendant, accosted her, and, when she walked away, struck her on the back of the head, grabbed her and dragged her into the alley where the act of forcible rape was committed; that she did not resist or cry out because of the effect of the blow and because defendant threatened to kill her if she made an outcry. She testified that after the assault the defendant forced her to accompany him through the alley for about half a block to his home at 1313 South Peoria Street, where she was taken to a gangway entrance and up a flight of stairs to the defendant's living quarters; that just before they entered the apartment the defendant threatened to kill her if she complained to anyone inside.
Prosecutrix testified that when they entered the door into the kitchen they found an older man making coffee who said nothing at the time; that she remained in the kitchen for a short time and then went into the washroom; that seeing a window on the gangway, she went back to the kitchen, asked the older man for soap to wash her hands, went back into the washroom, turned on the water and climbed out through the window and dropped to the gangway below. Being injured by the fall, she crawled toward the street and called to a person passing by, who picked her up and carried her to a hallway a few doors from the gangway. The record discloses she made no explanation at the time but asked the man to call the police. She then crawled up the stairs to a door on which she knocked. Lying on the floor of the hallway she asked one Pizana, who responded to her knock, to call the police, which he did. Other members of the family came and, in response to their inquiries, she stated she had been kidnaped by one Kennedy, by which name the defendant is known. A short time thereafter the police arrived and she told them she had been raped. The police took her to the county hospital where she was admitted and examined. She did not complain of rape to the doctor at the hospital and his testimony contains no reference that there was evidence of such crime having been committed. The police arrested defendant in a house at 1110 South Newberry Street about 6:45 A.M. He was drunk at the time. A statement was taken from him on the night of October 11, in which he denied the rape and alleged that he knew the prosecutrix prior to the charge and had previously engaged in sexual intercourse with her; that on the morning in question she came to his house around 4:30 or 5:00 A.M.; that he let her in and she told him she had had trouble with her brother, was unhappy and requested him to marry her; that they had sexual intercourse in his bed and on his refusal to promise marriage she threatened suicide; that thereafter she went to the washroom and that was the last he saw of her.
On the trial the defendant told substantially the same story except that he said she came to his house about 6:00 A.M.; that after having sexual relations prosecutrix went to the washroom and a few minutes later, a roomer, one Rosy Rodriquez, went to the washroom door, found it locked, and getting no response from the inside, called attention to it; that he and his stepfather, who was the man making coffee in the kitchen, broke in and found the washroom unoccupied; that they looked below the window and saw nobody, and that he did not know what had happened until after his arrest; that the occupants of the apartment were awake and that he and his sister, together with her boy friend, were preparing for a trip to Indiana, and that he went to the house where he was arrested to pick up one Rubio, who was going with them.
Defendant's testimony, in substance, is supported by that of his stepfather, his sister, his mother and Mrs. Rodriquez, the roomer, except that they gave no evidence tending to support his claim that he had sexual relations with the prosecutrix.
It is undisputed that while she was in the apartment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Davis
...... The defendant also argues that the testimony of the prosecuting witness was not clear and convincing, and that unless such testimony is clear and convincing, it must be corroborated by other facts and circumstances in order to sustain a conviction. People v. Silva, 405 Ill. 158, 89 N.E.2d 800; People v. Williams, 414 Ill. 414, 111 N.E.2d 343. However, in the instant case the testimony of the prosecuting witness was clear and convincing, and, in addition, she was corroborated by the testimony of her sister as to the events leading up to and at the time of ......
-
People v. Lilly
...... On cross-examination the victim testified that she was in fear. An outcry by the prosecutrix where it is useless or where she is restrained by fear of violence is not required. (People v. Silva, 405 Ill. 158, 89 N.E.2d 800; People v. Smith, 32 Ill.2d 88, 203 N.E.2d 879; People v. Griggs, 1970, 131 Ill.App.2d 257, 266 N.E.2d 398.). The real issue here was one of credibility of witness, and was therefore a jury question. (People v. Boatman, 3 Ill.App.3d 652, 279 N.E.2d 425; ......
-
People v. Williams
...... People v. Silva, 405 Ill. 158, 89 N.E.2d 800; Austine v. People, 110 Ill. 248. [23 Ill.2d 300] From our review of the evidence in the instant case, it is undisputed that the prosecutrix at no time made any outcry or attempt to escape or resisted in any way, even though they were walking along a ......
-
State v. Dizon
......State, 33 . Page 765 . Okl.Cr. 64, 241 P. 605, 606; State v. Roberts, 91 Utah 117, 125, 63 P.2d 584, 587 (1937); Magwire v. People, 77 Colo. 149, 235 P. 339; People v. Bales, 74 Cal.App.2d 732, 169 P.2d 262. . In assigning as error the trial court's refusal to ...457] where an outcry is useless or the woman is restrained by force, threat, or fear. People v. Silva, 405 Ill. 158, 89 N.E.2d 800 (1950); Wilson v. State, 10 Terry 37, 49 Del. 37, 57, 109 A.2d 381, 392 (1954), cert. denied 348 U.S. 983, 75 S.Ct. 574, ......