{ "id": 1580194, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Devery Bryant, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bryant", "decision_date": "1970-03-25", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 53,977", "first_page": "35", "last_page": "41", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "123 Ill. App. 2d 35" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "251 NE2d 795", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 Ill App2d 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1589997 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/113/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 NE2d 343", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "414 Ill 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5314018 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "416" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/414/0414-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 NE2d 706", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill2d 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2829084 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "146" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/30/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 NE2d 521", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "379 Ill 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2550573 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "393" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/379/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 Ill 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5238384 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/338/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 NE2d 406", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "405 Ill 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2627046 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "457" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/405/0454-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 547, "char_count": 8404, "ocr_confidence": 0.587, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.9160769379822445e-07, "percentile": 0.7323347809080761 }, "sha256": "11f6f5989e1ee6150279ff8e88637189dee892760b5bff7dd003980cc7ade187", "simhash": "1:cb0e1d3d7cd466da", "word_count": 1447 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:20.368977+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Devery Bryant, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nOFFENSE CHARGED\nContributing to the sexual delinquency of a child. Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 38, \u00a7 11-5 (a) (3).\nJUDGMENT\nAfter a bench trial, defendant was found guilty as charged and admitted to probation for one year, the first 60 days to be sp\u00e9nt in the House of Correction.\nCONTENTION RAISED ON APPEAL\nThe evidence did not prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\nEVIDENCE\nVernessa Long, for the State:\nShe is twelve years old and in the sixth grade. She lives at 4379 South Lamon. On November 30, 1968, she saw defendant and his friend, Eddie Redwood, at defendant\u2019s home at 1926 South Kedzie. She had seen defendant before that day, at her girl friend\u2019s house, 4304 South Cicero, but didn\u2019t know him well. The incident occurred at defendant\u2019s home. She and Amy (age 17) went there together. Amy saw the two boys and \u201cwe was walking and then Devery had called Amy and Amy went over there and I was right behind and then Amy had went in the basement with Eddie,\u201d but Vernessa stayed outside. Then defendant dragged her in. Amy was with Eddie Redwood in the basement. Witness had never been in that basement before.\nDefendant asked her if she wasn\u2019t \u201cgoing to give him some.\u201d She said no. Defendant then pulled down her shorts and panties, unzipped his pants, and \u201cstuck hisself\u201d in her. This happened \u201caround about 12:30 in the morning or afternoon, at night.\u201d\nWitness did not go home that night (Friday); rather, Amy \u201cwent and got\u201d someone named Curtis, and the witness stayed overnight with him at his friend\u2019s house. She went home Saturday morning. She did not tell her mother about what had happened until the following Tuesday, although she had been home with her for three days. Her sister found out about it from a girl friend and asked the witness about it. This was on Tuesday and she then told her mother, who sent the witness to see a Dr. Miller. She was hesitant to tell anyone before that time because defendant had slapped her and told her not to tell anyone.\nDevery Bryant, defendant, on his own behalf:\nOn the night in question, he was at 4304 South Cicero, where \u201cwe was visiting a girl named Carolyn. Schaekleford\u2019s house and we was over there until around 12:00, 12:00 or 1:00.\u201d The complaining witness and Amy were there. Amy\u2019s mother had been calling for her telling her to come home, \u201cso, when her mother come over there she [Amy] left out the back door.\u201d\nDefendant, Eddie Redwood, and \u201ca boy named Curtis\u201d left around midnight. They caught a bus and then the elevated and took it to 19th and Kedzie (a total distance of about 5 miles). Amy and Vernessa (the complaining witness) were on the elevated and also got off there. Amy said she was going to her auntie\u2019s house. Defendant and Eddie walked Curtis home and returned to where defendant lived. His auntie said the house was cold and he went into the basement to put some coal in the stoker. Amy and Vernessa were already down there. Defendant has a band that practices there and the basement is open all the time. We told them they had to leave, and they did, saying they were going to a restaurant. Amy called defendant around 3:00 a. m. and his auntie told her that he [defendant] couldn\u2019t be receiving calls that late.\nDefendant did not so much as touch Vernessa at any time, nor did he push her into the basement, or open his pants.\nEddie Redwood, on behalf of defendant:\nDefendant is a good friend of his. His testimony was substantially similar to defendant\u2019s with respect to the night in question, particularly corroborating defendant\u2019s testimony denying the acts charged. Additionally, he testified that he did not \u201c[play] around with\u201d or touch Amy, in the basement.\nOPINION\nDefendant\u2019s sole contention on this appeal is that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We are cognizant of the problems that exist in the proof of sex crimes. We consider the offense of contributing to the sexual delinquency of a child to be of the same genre and subject to the same evidentiary standards as those which are applied in rape cases. Just as \u201can indecent liberties case is similar in character to that of rape\u201d (People v. Watkins, 405 Ill 454, 457, 91 NE2d 406), so is the instant offense. As the court stated in Watkins:\nit is an accusation easily made, hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused, though ever so innocent. (People v. Phipps, 338 Ill 373.) We have always safeguarded the interests of an accused where the testimony is uncorroborated, by requiring that it should be clear and convincing.\nUpon a thorough review of the record, we find that the testimony of the twelve-year-old complaining witness is not very satisfactory. We agree with defendant that, because her testimony is uncorroborated and is not of the clear and convincing quality necessary for conviction, it leaves a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Although it is not contested that Vernessa was in the basement of defendant\u2019s house, she did not explain her presence in that area (in violation of the curfew) at the time defendant and his friend arrived. Nor are we given adequate rationale to explain her staying away from home until the following day. Although repeated references are made by each witness to Vernessa\u2019s friend Amy, who, according to all witnesses, was present at the time of the alleged occurrence, Amy did not testify, thereby leaving Vernessa\u2019s version without any corroboration from its most logical source. An additional question is raised as a result of her not mentioning the occurrence to her mother for three days, and then only at the behest of her sister. There was also no testimony from the doctor to whom Vernessa was taken at that time. Compare People v. Carruthers, 379 Ill 388, 393, 41 NE2d 521. These omissions detract greatly from the testimony of the complaining witness, and, considering defendant\u2019s strong denial of guilt and the corroborative testimony of his eyewitness, we believe that the evidence presented is insufficient. People v. Nunes, 30 Ill2d 143, 146, 195 NE2d 706; People v. Williams, 414 Ill 414, 416, 111 NE2d 343.\nWere it not for our conclusion to reverse defendant\u2019s conviction outright, we would reverse and remand for a new trial, because the trial court\u2019s determination that the 12-year-old complaining witness was competent to testify failed to meet established standards. The court\u2019s complete preliminary inquiry of this witness is set out in the record as follows:\nMR. TRUSCHKE (Asst. State\u2019s Attorney): Q. \u201cDo you know what it means to tell the truth?\u201d\nA. \u201cYes, sir.\u201d\nQ. \u201cDo you know where you\u2019re at today ?\u201d\nA. \u201cYes, sir.\u201d\nQ. \u201cDo you know who that man sitting up there is?\u201d\nA. \u201cYes, sir.\u201d\nQ. \u201cWho is he?\u201d\nA. \u201cThe judge.\u201d\nQ. \u201cWhat happens if you don\u2019t tell him the truth?\u201d\nA. \u201c(No response.)\u201d\nQ. \u201cAre you going to tell him the truth ?\u201d\nA. \u201cYes, sir.\u201d\nMR. TRUSCHKE: \u201cAsk for a rule on competency, your Honor.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cShe is competent.\u201d\nFor a rather full discussion of why we believe this kind of limited inquiry constitutes an abuse of the court\u2019s discretion, see People v. Sims, 113 Ill App2d 58, 251 NE2d 795, and the cases there cited. While this point has no direct bearing on the disposition of this case, it does, when considered along with the generally unsatisfactory testimony of the witness, tend to leave us with a lingering doubt as to whether or not the State\u2019s sole witness was competent to testify at all.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed.\nReversed.\nDRUCKER and LEIGHTON, JJ., concur.\nHEARING IN AGGRAVATION AND MITIGATION Defendant- is 17 years old and has no criminal, or juvenile, or arrest record. He was employed in his second year at the Urban Progress Center as a storekeeper\u2019s helper on the Neighborhood \u2022Youth Corps program. A fellow employee, Rosemary Love, defendant\u2019s supervisor, testified that he is honorable and trustworthy, and responsible in his job; and that when defendant heard the police were looking for him, he went to them unaware of what had happened.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gordon H. S. Scott and Michael Green, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Devery Bryant, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 53,977.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nMarch 25, 1970.\nGordon H. S. Scott and Michael Green, of Chicago, for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0035-01", "first_page_order": 41, "last_page_order": 47 }