Shirwin v. People
Citations
- 69 Ill. 55
Syllabus
<p>1. Continuance—requisites of affidamit. The requisites of an affidavit for a continuance on the ground of the absence of a witness, are, that it shows, first, the name and residence of the witness, and the materiality of his testimony; second, the exercise of proper diligence to procure the attendance of the witness, and third i that the witness can be had at the time to which it is sought to have the trial deferred.</p> <p>2. Rape—declarations of prosecutrix in impeachment of hem testimony. On the trial of one for rape, upon the proper foundation being laid, evidence that the prosecutrix had declared that the accused was not guilty, and that the prosecution was carried on to extort money from him or his friends, is material and properly admissible in the defense.</p> <p>3. Same—character!' of prosecutrix. It is the genera] rule that the character of the prosecutrix, on a charge of rape, may be impeached; but this must, he done by general evidence of her reputation in that respect, and not by evidence of particular instances of unchastity.</p> <p>4. Same—when particular acts of unchastity admissible. But where the prosecutrix testified that she was unconscious, and did not know whether the accused committed the rape or not, and the prosecution proved by a physician, who examined her three weeks afterwards, that she did not then bear the physical evidences of virginity, and gave it as his opinion that she had had carnal connection with a man at some time before: Held, that it was competent to rebut the inference sought to be drawn from this evidence, by showing either a previous voluntary connection with the accused, or particular instances of unchastity with any other man, as well as to show by other medical testimony that the theory of the doctor testifying was unreliable.</p> <p>5. Trial—improper remarks of judge. On the trial of one for rape, the accused sought to lay the foundation for the inference of voluntary intercourse between himself and the prosecutrix
Judges: McAllister
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- People v. SchottIllinois Supreme Court· 1991-10-31· cited 217×
- People v. GrayIllinois Supreme Court· 1911-10-25· cited 75×
- The People v. KazmierczykIllinois Supreme Court· 1934-10-22· cited 42×
- People v. FrymanIllinois Supreme Court· 1954-11-18· cited 34×
- The PEOPLE v. CollinsIllinois Supreme Court· 1962-09-28· cited 28×
- People v. FreemanIllinois Supreme Court· 1910-04-21· cited 27×
- State v. LintonWashington Supreme Court· 1950-04-03· cited 26×
- People v. ColeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1990-02-15· cited 24×
- Rice v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1895-01-15· cited 22×
- Cloninger v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1921-12-07· cited 20×
- State v. ApleyNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1913-04-14· cited 20×
- Bedgood v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1888-06-20· cited 19×
- Lee v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1915-09-15· cited 15×
- State v. DackeWashington Supreme Court· 1910-06-30· cited 14×
- People v. AllenIllinois Supreme Court· 1919-06-18· cited 11×
- State v. WhitesellSupreme Court of Missouri· 1898-02-01· cited 11×
- Austine v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1884-06-13· cited 9×
- The People v. CoxIllinois Supreme Court· 1943-09-21· cited 6×
- The People v. LangaasIllinois Supreme Court· 1930-04-17· cited 4×
- Cloniger v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1921-12-07· cited 2×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.