People v. Silvia
| Decision Date | 19 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 28351.,28351. |
| Citation | 59 N.E.2d 821,389 Ill. 346 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SILVIA. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Piatt County; W. S. Bodman, Judge.
Walter Silvia was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Dwight H. Doss, of Monticello, and B. L. Kirk, of Champaign, for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Carl I. Glasgow, State's Atty., of Monticello, for the People.
An indictment consisting of three counts was returned in the circuit court of Piatt county against the defendant, Walter Silvia, charging him with an assault with intent to commit rape. A jury returned a verdict of guilty. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied, judgment was rendered on the verdict and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for an indeterminate period of from one to five years. Silvia prosecutes this writ of error.
The complaining witness, twenty years of age and unmarried, resided with her parents at White Heath. She was an employee of the M. and M. Store in Monticello. Her hours of employment were from 9 to 12 o'clock in the morning and from 1 to 6 o'clock in the afternoon. She customarily commuted between White Heath and Monticello on an interurban train. On her return trip to White Heath, she usually boarded the train leaving Monticello at 6:04 p. m. According to her version, on February 24, 1944, about five minutes before 6 o'clock p. m., she was walking to the interurban station in Monticello when defendant, who was alone, stopped his automobile alongside her, approximately in front of the jail; that she had, on prior occasions, seen defendant at her place of employment, but had never before conversed with him; that he inquired if her destination was White Heath and, upon her affirmative reply, suggested she accompany him, stating he would arrive in White Heath before the interurban train; that she demurred but, upon his insistence, finally entered the automobile, taking a seat alongside defendant; that he drove north on the highway out of Monticello until Lodge Park was reached, and that when he commenced to turn into the park, she seized the steering wheel, knocked his arm away and screamed. Her testimony depicts her steadfast resistance to the advances of her assailant, and describes her escape from the car, a chase during which she was knocked to the ground and her return to the automobile against her will. A narration of the revolting details of the ensuing attempt to rape the complaining witness would serve no useful purpose. It is sufficient to state that her testimony, if believed, established the crime charged in the indictment. She further testified that when defendant desisted, he drove her to White Heath, where she alighted a short distance from her residence, and immediately repaired to the office of Dr. W. N. Sievers. She testified that she arrived at the physician's office at 6:20 or 6:25 o'clock p. m. Upon completion of an examination by the doctor, she went directly to her residence and reported the incident to her father. Later the same evening, accompanied by her father, she visited the sheriff of Piatt county and informed him of the assault. She positively identified defendant, Walter Silvia, as the man who attacked her, and his automobile as the one in which the assault occurred.
Grace Wood, well acquainted with the complaining witness, testified that she had known defendant for some time; that she was in the interurban station on February 24, 1944, about five minutes before six, and that, while there, she saw defendant and the complaining witness; that defendant was alone in his automobile; that he stopped the car, and that she saw complaining witness enter the automobile. She added that she saw them go north on the road out of Monticello; that it was sufficiently light to enable her to recognize individuals in the automobile, and that defendant was driving the car. Jack Wood, sixteen years old, a brother of Grace, testified that he was at White Heath on the afternoon of February 24; that the complaining witness alighted from a car between 6:15 and 6:30 o'clock p. m., but that he did not recognize her companion who wore no hat and had light hair. Dr. Sievers corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix, stating that she informed him at the time he examined her someone had made an assault upon her with intent to commit rape. He further stated that her clothing was tousled and that there was dirt on her underclothing. Her father testified to her arrival home about 6:35 or 6:40 o'clock in the evening of February 24, 1944, and that she immediately complained to him of the assault.
Defendant, although admitting that, on several previous occasions, he had seen the prosecuting witness at the M. & M. store in Monticello, denied seeing or being with her at any time on February 24, 1944. He also denied he was responsible for the attack upon her. An alibi was relied upon as his principal defense. This he sought to establish by the testimony of Minnie Helm, his sister, Rosella Silvia, his wife, Lester Silvia, his brother, Richard Stiverson, his sister's fiance, and himself. Defendant, twenty-seven years of age, and a resident of Monticello on February 24, 1944, testified that he and his brother, Lester, were then employed at the Camp Creek Duck Farm, located about two and one-half miles north of Monticello; that they left their place of employment at 5 o'clock p. m., and that he arrived at his residence at about 6:20 o'clock. The intervening period between 5 and 6:20 p. m., was accounted for in his testimony by trips to a grocery store, to the southeast corner of the ‘Square’ in Monticello, to a gasoline filling station, and to a garage, where he arrived at 5:45 o'clock p. m. and spent ten minutes, after which he returned to the ‘Square,’ ostensibly in an unsuccessful attempt to meet an insurance man who had visited the farm in the afternoon. He further testified that he then departed for his residence; that, upon his arrival, his wife, sister and brother were present, and that, about 7 o'clock, these three and himself, accompanied by Stiverson and Dorothy Scott, a friend of his brother, went to Decatur in Stiverson's car and did not return to Monticello until around midnight. The testimony of Stiverson, Lester Silvia, Minnie Helm and Rosella Silvia tended to corroborate defendant as to his movements in Monticello at various times from shortly after 5 o'clock in the afternoon of February 24 until about 5:55 o'clock and, also, for the remainder of the evening subsequent to 6:15 or 6:20 o'clock.
To obtain a reversal, errors in giving and refusing instructions are charged. The instructions complained of are not set forth in defendant's brief, which merely directs us to the pages in the record where the instructions appear. This court does not explore the record for this purpose. The abstract discloses that objections were not made to the court's action in either giving or refusing instructions. The propriety of the challenged instructions is not open to consideration. People v. Doss, 384 Ill. 400, 51 N.E.2d 517;People v. Hughey, 382 Ill. 136, 47...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barnslater
...the result if a new trial [were] granted'" (People v. Jones, 26 Ill.App.3d 78, 82, 325 N.E.2d 56 (1975), quoting People v. Silvia, 389 Ill. 346, 352, 59 N.E.2d 821 (1945)); likewise, to survive a motion to dismiss, and to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing under the Act, a petitioner mus......
-
People v. Pearson
...an alibi interposed as a defense, although upon the whole case his guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.' People v. Silvia, 389 Ill. 346, 353, 59 N.E.2d 821, 824; People v. Weiss, 367 Ill. 580, 588, 12 N.E.2d 652; People v. Kerbeck, 362 Ill. 251, 256, 199 N.E. 789; People v. Mero,......
-
People v. Hiller
...We also agree that the evidence of a prosecutrix should be corroborated by some other testimony, fact or circumstance. People v. Silvia, 389 Ill. 346, 59 N.E.2d 821; People v. Canonica, 370 Ill. 441, 19 N.E.2d 334. However, in the instant case, the testimony of the prosecutrix is clear and ......
-
People v. Ladas
...evidence must not be cumulative of evidence already presented at the trial in order to be the basis of a new trial. People v. Silvia, 389 Ill. 346, 59 N.E.2d 821; People v. Marino, 388 Ill. 203, 57 N.E.2d 469; People v. Tillman, 383 Ill. 560, 50 N.E.2d 751; People v. Buzan, 351 Ill. 610, 18......