People v. Walls
| Decision Date | 19 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 38218,38218 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Lydell WALLS, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Richard J. Myers Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defenant in error.
Defendant, Lydell Walls, was found guilty of rape by a jury in the circuit court of Cook County and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 15 to 20 years. On this appeal he contends that there was error in admitting testimony of an auto theft subsequent to the alleged rape, that even if this evidence was properly admitted there was a failure to give proper instructions as to such testimony, that defendant was required to testify as to the alleged auto theft in violation of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecuting witness testified that at about 2:30 A.M. on July 26, 1961, she left her home and started walking toward the home of her mother-in-law in Chicago. While enroute, she was accosted by three men, one of whom was defendant. Defendant had a gun and one of the other men had a screwdriver which he pressed against her head. Prosecutrix screamed for help when she saw three passersby, but they did not heed her cry. She was then pushed into an alley where defendant pulled her clothes apart, forced her to lie down, and engaged in an act of sexual intercourse with her against her will while the other two men knelt beside her threatening her with the gun and screwdriver. The other two men also had intercourse with her against her will, during which time she screamed and struggled.
The prosecutrix testified that the defendant and his companions then forced her to accompany them into a two-door automobile in which they drove for about a half hour. During this time, the defendant threatened her with a gun. She was then thrown out of the car near her mother-in-law's home and was able to observe that the license number of the car was 'JU 7185'. She then went immediately to the home of her mother-in-law.
The mother-in-law of the prosecuting witness testified that prosecutrix arrived in tears at her house at about 4:25 A.M. on July 26, 1961, and that her hair was disarranged, her clothing soiled, and buttons were missing from her clothing. The police were called immediately. One of the investigating officers accompanied prosecutrix to the place where she described the criminal acts as having occurred and discovered a button which appeared to match one of the buttons missing from her skirt.
Defendant testified that he and his companions met the prosecutrix on the street, and that she offered to have sexual relations with them in exchange for car fare to go home. He testified that they then went into the alley where she disrobed and voluntarily had intercourse with each of them. He denied that any of them had a gun or a screwdriver and further stated that prosecutrix did not scream or resist in any manner. He further testified that they tried to get her a cab, but were unable to do so, and then 'got a car' and drove her to her mother-in-law's home where they waited for her to enter the house. He also testified that the car did not belong to him or either of his co-defendants.
Thomas Holmes testified that he was a mechanic and had been employed by Dorothy Bracey to do repair work on her 1956 two-door black and white Ford automobile. He testified that the license number contained a prefix 'JU' and that the car was parked in front of his home at approximately 1:00 A.M. on July 26. When he later looked for it, it was missing, but he eventually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Martin
...the narrative of the defendants arrest, involving relevant evidence of time, proximity and defendants' identity. (People v. Walls (1965), 33 Ill.2d 394, 397-98, 211 N.E.2d 699; People v. Spiezio (1982), 105 Ill.App.3d 769, 772-73, 61 Ill.Dec. 482, 434 N.E.2d 837; People v. Davis (1981), 93 ......
-
People v. Adkins
...they do not concern separate, distinct and disconnected crimes.” Marose, 10 Ill.2d at 343, 139 N.E.2d 735. See also People v. Walls, 33 Ill.2d 394, 397, 211 N.E.2d 699 (1965) (evidence that rape defendant and accomplices stole the automobile in which they drove the victim home was properly ......
-
People v. Nutall
...to the jury on a particular point, it is the duty of defendant to prepare and ask for the instruction. (See, e. g., People v. Walls (1965), 33 Ill.2d 394, 398, 211 N.E.2d 699.) A trial judge has no duty to give instructions sua sponte, where a defendant does not tender them and a defendant ......
-
People v. Smith
...541, 547, 213 N.E.2d 270.) So also, it is his duty to tender a proper instruction on a particular issue at trial. (People v. Walls (1965), 33 Ill.2d 394, 398, 211 N.E.2d 699; People v. Damen (1963), 28 Ill.2d 464, 469, 193 N.E.2d 25; People v. Gratton (1963), 28 Ill.2d 450, 456, 192 N.E.2d ......