{
  "id": 2502570,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Shivers, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Shivers",
  "decision_date": "1975-06-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 12825",
  "first_page": "359",
  "last_page": "361",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 359"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "220 N.E.2d 432",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill.2d 467",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5378433
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/35/0467-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 N.E.2d 71",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ill.App.2d 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2580940
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/74/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N.E.2d 749",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "412 Ill. 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2663816
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/412/0425-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 313,
    "char_count": 3721,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.736,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.263068351164725e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3305953358670718
    },
    "sha256": "6eb80b87bb4080d153f9033fd5599f413759cea5a27c5cfb4af8fd3e35cdec58",
    "simhash": "1:0e117d96d1268d26",
    "word_count": 622
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:57.823802+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Shivers, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SIMKINS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant-appeHant Roy Shivers was tried before a jury in the circuit court of Champaign County, and convicted of the crime of rape. He was sentenced to a term of 5 to 15 years in the penitentiary. He contends that his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim\u2019s roommate was in a room adjoining, with the door closed. She heard the struggle, heard the victim shout for help and promptly called the police. She subsequently heard the victim yelling \u201cStop it. You\u2019re choking me. * * * I can\u2019t breath * * * Don\u2019t rape me.\u201d The police arrived while the crime was in progress, the defendant being on top of his victim. Defendant claims that the victim\u2019s testimony with reference to penetration was impeached and that this is the flaw in the State\u2019s case. Penetration is a necessary element of the crime of forcible rape. (People v. Perez, 412 Ill. 425, 107 N.E.2d 749; People v. Oatis, 74 Ill.App.2d 103, 220 N.E.2d 71.) Whether or not the testimony of the victim was convincing is a matter for the jury. A seemingly prior inconsistent statement given by the victim relating to this issue was clearly explained by her, and the jury found her testimony credible. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury\u2019s verdict.\nDefendant also urges that the closing arguments of the prosecutor were so prejudicial and inflammatory as to deprive him of a fair trial. We first note that much of the matter complained of was not objected to during the course of the argument. Defense counsel stated to the jury:\n\u201cWhen you get to the jury room I am sure that some of you will think of things that I didn\u2019t say that I should have said. I\u2019ll have to ask also of each of you that you think of the replies that I would make to whatever Mr. Steigmann may say in his portion.\u201d\nIn rebuttal the prosecutor noted that defense counsel had completely failed to respond to the State\u2019s contention that the defendant\u2019s version of the incident was incredible and added:\n* It\u2019s a very neat trick, ladies and gentlemen, because of course he has no explanation, and then he sat down at that table with about twenty minutes left for his argument, and said you come up with one.\u201d\nDefendant maintains that his statement was an attempt to shift the burden of proof to defendant. In our view, when the remark was made in the context noted, this contention is without merit, and clearly distinguishable from the circumstances present in People v. Weinstein, 35 Ill.2d 467, 220 N.E.2d 432, upon which defendant relies. In that case the prosecutor stated to the jury that \u201c * * before you can find her not guilty, you must say that she had created a reasonable doubt.\u2019 \u201d (Emphasis added.) The statement here in question obviously fails to approach that condemned in Weinstein, where the supreme court noted some 17 instances of improper argument.\nWe have examined the closing arguments, and find no improprieties which could have been responsible for the jury\u2019s verdict.\nWe see no need to burden this opinion with further evidentiary detail, and further discussion would have no precedential value. No error law appears in the record, and we affirm the judgment in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 23.\nJudgment affirmed.\nTRAPP and CRAVEN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SIMKINS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard J. Wilson and Richard E. Cunningham, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "James R. Burgess, Jr., State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Robert James Steigmann, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, and Joy Fisher, Law Student, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Shivers, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 12825;\nFourth District\nJune 19, 1975.\nRichard J. Wilson and Richard E. Cunningham, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nJames R. Burgess, Jr., State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Robert James Steigmann, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, and Joy Fisher, Law Student, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0359-01",
  "first_page_order": 383,
  "last_page_order": 385
}