People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 23 March 1953
• Docket Number: No. 32662,32662
• Citation: 414 Ill. 414,111 N.E.2d 343
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS.

Page 343

111 N.E.2d 343

414 Ill. 414

PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS.

No. 32662.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 23, 1953.

John L. Roach, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., and John Gutknecht, State's Atty. of Chicago (John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega and Arthur Manning, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

HERSHEY, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Benjamin Williams, hereinafter called defendant, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook County for the crime of taking indecent liberties with a child under the age of fifteen years, to wit, thirteen years, and of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He entered a plea of not guilty, waived trial by jury, and at the conclusion of the evidence was found guilty of the crime of taking indecent liberties with a child as charged in count I of the indictment. He was sentenced for a minimum of four years and a maximum of eight years.

It is shown by the evidence that the defendant, a man of thirty-four years of age, made his home with the complaining witness, her mother, sister, and brother. He was not, however, related to complainant's family. The prosecutrix was a female minor, thirteen years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence. She testified that on the evening of March 3, 1952, while her mother was out shopping, the defendant sent her brother and sister into a back bedroom to go to bed, and then himself retired to the middle bedroom. A short time later, she asserts, he called her into his room and asked her to rub his stomach. He then requested that she come to bed and lay next to him for a while. She complied with his request and he thereupon committed the abuses of which she made complaint. The next morning she told her mother what occurred, but her mother did not believe her. A week later her aunt observed her crying as she departed for school and called her into the house. At that time she related the story to her aunt.

Sharon Williams, the eleven-year-old sister of the prosecutrix, testified on direct examination that she did not recall the night of March 3 or the first week of March, 1952, and that she never heard defendant talk to her sister about two months previous. After some further questioning she stated she did hear a conversation between her sister and defendant at night, when defendant told her sister to rub his 'tummy.' Defendant denied that he ever sexually abused the complainant.

The defendant assigns as one of the reasons for a reversal of this cause that the evidence does not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to determine this, it is necessary to review the evidence as reflected in the record of the case.

The conviction of the defendant was for the crime of taking indecent liberties with a minor child. This court, in considering a case of like character, People v. Watkins, 405 Ill. 454, 91 N.E.2d 406, 407, used the following language: 'An indecent liberties case is similar in character to that of rape, because it is an accusation easily made, hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused, though every so innocent. People v. Phipps, 338 Ill. 373 170 N.E. 305. We have always safeguarded the interests of an accused where the testimony is uncorroborated, by requiring that it should be clear and convincing.'

In the case of People v. Crowe, 390 Ill. 294, 61 N.E.2d 348, the court stated that when the conviction of the defendant rests or is based upon the testimony of a child of tender years, in order to sustain a judgment of guilt that evidence must be corroborated or be otherwise clear and convincing. In People v. Pazell, 399 Ill. 462, 78 N.E.2d 212, 214, this court said that, 'Where a conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child depends upon the testimony of the prosecuting witness, and the defendant denies the charge, there must be substantial corroboration of the prosecuting witness by some other evidence, fact or circumstance in the case. People v. Martin, 380 Ill. 328, 44 N.E.2d 49.'

The prosecutrix in this case was one Carol Williams, a minor child thirteen years of age. While, in the course of the testimony, she could recall details of the evening prior to the alleged occurrence here, she could not tell how the defendant was clothed. She stated that he (the defendant) sometimes sleeps with his shirt on, but she could not remember whether he wore one that evening, although she claimed, at his request, she had rubbed his stomach. She later did say he wore shorts. She further stated that she did not tell her mother about the affair until the following day when the defendant was not around, but then immediately said he might have been in the same room. When asked if she had any...