The People v. Thomas

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Mahaffey

    128 Ill. 2d 388 (Ill. 1989)   Cited 100 times
    Holding that prosecutor's statement during rebuttal closing argument that defendant's innocence was not the only inference that could be drawn from failure of the informant to testify and that defendant could have used compulsory process to secure informant's appearance if defendant truly believed that the informant's testimony would have been exculpatory were invited by defendant's closing argument in which defendant demanded that the State explain the informant's failure to appear at trial; as such, the statements were not made in error

    Furthermore, these facts, when coupled with both of the defendants' statements, establish the corpus delicti of rape. Jerry cites to several cases in support of his argument that the State failed to prove the corpus delicti of the rape: People v. Lambert (1984), 104 Ill.2d 375; People v. Thomas (1960), 18 Ill.2d 439; People v. Kokoraleis (1986), 149 Ill. App.3d 1000; People v. Anderson (1974), 20 Ill. App.3d 840. All are inapposite.

  2. People v. Sims

    166 Ill. App. 3d 289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that it was not reversible error to fail to answer the jury's question where the trial judge was presiding over closing arguments in a co-defendant's case when the question was asked and the jury reached a result before the judge could confer with the parties

    Defendants argue that the 26-year-old complainant's testimony that she had been "raped" was insufficient to prove the necessary penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ. In People v. Thomas (1960), 18 Ill.2d 439, 164 N.E.2d 36, defendant objected that there was no evidence of penetration. The record showed that in answer to a question as to what happened after defendant had taken off her pants, the complaining witness testified, "He raped me."

  3. The People v. Boney

    230 N.E.2d 167 (Ill. 1967)   Cited 11 times

    It is of course well established in this State that medical testimony is not required to prove a rape, and this is true even when it is established that the victim went to a hospital after the crime occurred. ( People v. Edmunds, 30 Ill.2d 538, 542; People v. Thomas, 18 Ill.2d 439, 444.) More significantly however, and contrary to defendant's assertions, there is nothing in the record herein to show that the victim was ever examined by any doctor following the alleged rape. It is possible that she might have testified that she saw a doctor in Michigan had she been allowed to expand on her statement that she did not visit a doctor or hospital in Chicago on the day of the alleged rape, but it was defendant's privately retained counsel who objected thereto and chose not to inquire into the subject on cross-examination. Defendant cannot now expect a retrial on the unsupported assumption that pursuit of that which he originally chose not to pursue would have been fruitful.

  4. The People v. Reaves

    183 N.E.2d 169 (Ill. 1962)   Cited 26 times

    Other errors, if any, could not reasonably have affected the result. People v. Thomas, 18 Ill.2d 439. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that defendant was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

  5. The People v. Mosley

    177 N.E.2d 851 (Ill. 1961)   Cited 3 times

    In any event the defendant could hardly have been prejudiced, because as an alibi witness Gaston's testimony failed to corroborate the defendant, and as a character witness, his testimony was technically inadmissible because no attack had been made upon the defendant's credibility. People v. Thomas, 18 Ill.2d 439, 444. The judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is affirmed.

  6. People v. Daniels

    129 Ill. App. 3d 894 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 12 times

    ( People v. Wright (1972), 3 Ill. App.3d 829, 833, 279 N.E.2d 398.) Where the victim's story is consistent and such discrepancies do not detract from its reasonableness, her testimony may be found clear and convincing. People v. Thomas (1960), 18 Ill.2d 439, 442-43, 164 N.E.2d 36. The record reveals that the trial court found complainant's testimony very straightforward and credible.

  7. People v. Sprouse

    418 N.E.2d 1070 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 13 times
    Regarding impeachment by prior inconsistent statement

    We find that this alleged discrepancy did not distract from the reasonableness of complainant's story as a whole. (See People v. Brown (1963), 29 Ill.2d 375, 194 N.E.2d 326; People v. Thomas (1960), 18 Ill.2d 439, 164 N.E.2d 36; People v. Wright.) Complainant's testimony was very straightforward, and we find it to be clear and convincing. • 5 Even assuming complainant's testimony was not clear and convincing, her testimony was sufficiently corroborated by (a) her prompt complaint made to Mrs. Santana that she had been attacked ( People v. Secret (1978), 72 Ill.2d 371, 381 N.E.2d 285; People v. Thompson (1978), 57 Ill. App.3d 134, 372 N.E.2d 1052), (b) medical evidence indicating a physical assault ( People v. Rankin (1979), 73 Ill. App.3d 661, 392 N.E.2d 288; People v. Thompson), and (c) her emotional distress evidenced by crying ( People v. Rankin; People v. Thompson).

  8. People v. Griffith

    56 Ill. App. 3d 747 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 25 times

    It is proper to impeach any witness, including a defendant in a criminal case, by evidence his reputation for truth and veracity is bad ( People v. Bakutis (1941), 377 Ill. 386, 390, 36 N.E.2d 724, 726), but evidence of a witness' good reputation for truth and veracity cannot be admitted in the first instance until his reputation has first been attacked as being bad. See Tedens v. Schumers (1884), 112 Ill. 263, 266; People v. Thomas (1960), 18 Ill.2d 439, 444, 164 N.E.2d 36, 39. • 11 Evidence of a defendant's reputation for truth and veracity is also admissible in a criminal proceeding if it relates to some issue involved in the crime charged.

  9. People v. Wright

    3 Ill. App. 3d 829 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)   Cited 25 times

    ( People v. Jackson (1963), 28 Ill.2d 566.) It is the task of the trier of fact, here the court, to weigh these discrepancies in light of all the other testimony in reaching its decision. If it is found that the discrepancies are so minor as not to detract from the reasonableness of her story as a whole, the testimony of the prosecutrix may be found to be clear and convincing. People v. Thomas (1960), 18 Ill.2d 439; People v. Brown (1963), 29 Ill.2d 375. • 7 The difference between the preliminary hearing transcript and the testimony of Mrs. Johnson and the police officers at trial is the only unexplainable discrepancy that has been pointed out by defendant.