{ "id": 2778787, "name": "The People of The State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Clement Finn, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Finn", "decision_date": "1957-09-20", "docket_number": "No. 34329", "first_page": "76", "last_page": "78", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "12 Ill. 2d 76" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "7 Ill.2d 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2713608 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "585" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/7/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "403 Ill. 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2620985 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "51-2" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/403/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ill.2d 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2724228 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/10/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "383 Ill. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2485128 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "242" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/383/0236-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 269, "char_count": 3433, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08, "percentile": 0.47036931496778384 }, "sha256": "f22834e341f5c0a25e3897d8426d09ee05b1796d0cdfe8d10050ecbe889e2460", "simhash": "1:ee89184fca9069d8", "word_count": 557 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:10:36.487665+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of The State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Clement Finn, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Hershey\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a jury trial in the circuit court of Jo Daviess County, the defendant, Clement Finn, was found guilty of taking indecent liberties with a child, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 38, par. 109,) and sentenced to a term of one to ten years in the penitentiary.\nIn asking a reversal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence does not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and (2) the acquittal of a lesser offense (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) amounts to an acquittal of the instant charge.\nThe State\u2019s principal witness, a 12-year-old girl, testified that she and the defendant had sexual relations several times during January, 1956, at the latter\u2019s house. The defendant acknowledged that he knew the girl and that she had been with him at his house during that time, but he denied that he ever had sexual intercourse with her.\nA neighbor of the defendant testified that on one occasion he observed them \u201cnecking\u201d on the davenport. This witness also stated he heard the defendant admit he had had sexual intercourse with the girl. The defendant denied this admission and insisted that he never showed the girl any affection at all.\nApart from other minor evidentiary matters, including evidence regarding the girl\u2019s unwholesome background, the balance of the case consisted of the testimony of witnesses attesting the defendant\u2019s good reputation for decency and morality.\nThe defendant asserts that this character evidence was sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of guilt. But \u201cgood character or reputation is but a circumstance to be considered in connection with all the evidence in determining an accused person\u2019s guilt or innocence and such determination is the function of the jury. If guilt is clearly established, proof of good character or reputation avails nothing.\u201d People v. Klemann, 383 Ill. 236, 242.\nEven without corrobation for the girl\u2019s testimony it does not necessarily follow that the conviction should be set aside, (People v. Halteman, 10 Ill.2d 74, 80,) and here there is corroboration. The defendant admitted she was in the home around the dates in question, and the neighbor stated that the defendant told of having had sexual relations with the girl. Apart from the defendant\u2019s denial, there is neither testimony nor circumstance to- detract from the jury\u2019s conclusion. They are the judges of the credibility ' of the witnesses, and we cannot say there is insufficient evidence to support their verdict.\nFinally, the defendant argues that an acquittal on a lesser charge, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, demands an acquittal on the instant charge, taking indecent liberties with a child. (Actually, the jury did not return a verdict at all on the delinquency charge, and the parties agree this constituted an acquittal.) However, the two crimes are separate and distinct offenses and not merely degrees of the same offense, so that his argument is unavailing. People v. Raddatz, 403 Ill. 48, 51-2; People v. Labiak, 7 Ill.2d 583, 585.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Hershey" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ralph P. Sheridan, of Freeport, for plaintiff in error.", "Latham Castle, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Harold D. Nagel, State\u2019s Attorney, of Galena, (Fred G. Leach, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 34329.\nThe People of The State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Clement Finn, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed September 20, 1957\nRalph P. Sheridan, of Freeport, for plaintiff in error.\nLatham Castle, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Harold D. Nagel, State\u2019s Attorney, of Galena, (Fred G. Leach, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0076-01", "first_page_order": 78, "last_page_order": 80 }