Wistrand v. People
| Decision Date | 23 June 1905 |
| Citation | 218 Ill. 323,75 N.E. 891 |
| Parties | WISTRAND v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; George Kersten, Judge.
Charles Wistrand was convicted of rape, and brings error. Affirmed.
Rehearing denied December 13, 1905.
Charles R. R. Macaulay and Edwin A & Oscar D. Olson, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., John J. Healy, State's Atty., and James J. Barbour, Asst. State's Atty., for the People.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the criminal court of Cook county of the crime of rape upon one Annie Kaplan, a girl 13 years of age, and his punishment was fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of 1 1/2 years. To reverse that judgment this writ of error has been sued out.
The only errors assigned are that the court erred in denying the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment and in pronouncing sentence. Many grounds of reversal are called to our attention, but under these general assignments of error, and the indefinite manner in which the points are urged, it is impossible to consider each of them separately. The substantial grounds of reversal are the improper admission of testimony and the giving of erroneous instructions. The evidence is to the effect that the offense was committed in the room of plaintiff in error in the second flat of a residence building which he owned in the city of Chicago. He used the basement of the building for a carpenter shop. The first floor was rented for residence purposes, and the second was occupied by himself; he being a bachelor without family. A young girl by the name of Eva Goldstein testified she was in the adjoining room at the time the crime was committed, and she corroborated the prosecuting witness, Annie Kaplan. After his arrest, and while at the police station, the defendant made a written statement, in whch he acknowledged having had sexual intercourse, on various occasions, with both the Kaplan girl and the Goldstein girl. It is not claimed that this statement was not freely and voluntarily made, but it is contended that so much of it as relates to the Goldstein girl should have been excluded. The statement was, as shown above, in writing, and it would have been impossible to separate the part of it objected to from that which referred to the crime charged. To refuse to admit a part of the confession would have been practically to exclude it all. The court, by an instruction, told the jury to disregard all evidence of other offenses, and only consider that which was applicable to the charge in the indictment. There was no error in admitting the confession.
It is said that in his opening statement to the jury the prosecuting attorney told the jury that he expected to prove by several little girls under 14 years of age that they had been, over and over again, to see the defendant at his house, and that this proof would be offered for the purpose of proving that the premises were situated in Cook county. Several young girls were introduced as witnesses, and testified, over the objection of the defendant, that they were under 14 years of age, that they had been at de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nall
...appears that suchtestimony could not have reasonably affected the result. Jennings v. People, 189 Ill. 320, 59 N. E. 515;Wistrand v. People, 218 Ill. 323, 75 N. E. 891. It is further insisted that the court erred in permitting some of the witnesses for the state to testify that the stockhol......
-
People v. Gibson
...St. Rep. 283;Parkinson v. People, 135 Ill. 401, 25 N. E. 764,10 L. R. A. 91;Lyons v. People, 137 Ill. 602, 27 N. E. 677;Wistrand v. People, 218 Ill. 323, 75 N. E. 891;People v. White, 251 Ill. 67, 95 N. E. 1036;People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 N. E. 286,62 L. R. A. 193. Plaintiff in er......
-
People v. Celmars
...trait of character not involved in the crime charged is inadmissible. People v. Redola, 300 Ill. 392, 133 N. E. 292;Wistrand v. People, 218 Ill. 323, 75 N. E. 891. The answer adduced on the direct examination of the witness that the plaintiff in error was attentive to duty and sober-minded ......
-
People v. Strauch
...will not reverse a judgment for slight errors committed on the trial when it can see they did not affect the result. Wistrand v. People, 218 Ill. 323, 75 N. E. 891, and cases cited. The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.CARTWRIGHT, DUNN, and COOKE, JJ., ...