*1 829 PER CURIAM: charge being was indicted for murder and
reduced to manslaughter, guilty entered a voluntary plea to that first He here for the time he entitled charge. argues 38, 1969, be discharged pursuant 5(a), to Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. par. 103 — 120-day The failure to rule. raise this below waived question ap 403, pellant’s to be White right discharged. (1962), v. 349; 412, People Kluczynski 186 N.E.2d Ill.2d 211 N.E.2d (1965), Furthermore, any waived appellant’s plea guilty alleged 527, right People Ill.2d 155 N.E.2d discharge. (1959), DeCola 622; People Sims 272 N.E.2d 433. (Ill.App.2d),
We therefore affirm.
Judgment affirmed. Illinois, v. Hebie State Plaintiff-Appellee,
Weight, Defendant-Appellant. 55595;
(No. 1, February First 1972. District *2 LEIGHTON, J., dissenting. Becker, Defender, Ron- Chicago, Getty, (Herbert
Gerald W. Public Defenders, counsel,) Doherty, ald Katz Assistant Public P. and J. James for appellant. Hanrahan, A. Novelle Attorney, Chicago, (Robert State’s Edward V. Karahalios, for Attorneys, counsel,) Assistant State’s and N.. James People. Mr. PRESIDING delivered the opinion STAMOS JUSTICE
court: and guilty Defendant was for crime pled indicted of rape, He was and sentenced right guilty waived to trial found jury. 20 years. than a term less than nor more for of not penitentiary not clear Defendant contends that the of the prosecutrix and that the State to corroborate her convincing, failed evidence, guilty medical was therefore not proven and defendant beyond reasonable doubt. 17, 1969, Johnson, July
Mrs. Verdie testified that on prosecutrix, Chicago, she and husband lived at South Indiana Avenue Illinois, had a house. The which occupied rooming apartment who with defendant common kitchen room was shared living and which lived on the same floor. At 5:30 P.M. that day, on defendant approximately Mrs. and Johnson tenants on that floor of present Mrs. building. kitchen, in the cooking and and greeted entered her. After left pleasantries, defendant and went to the
exchanging Mrs. Johnson later, washroom. Several minutes defendant entered asked again about her cousin whom Wright had met the week. previous A brief place departed conversation from the apart- *3 thereafter, Mrs. went Shortly ment. to her bedroom to he down. Johnson her, premises Defendant entered the a third time and as he approached room, trousers, she the he told him to leave but unzipped grabbed and her them to the She legs pinned bed. screamed but defendant phys- her and to kill if restrained threatened ically she screamed again. resisted, arm, but he twisted her at her Mrs. tore clothing, ripping Johnson dress, the from her and off her pulled buttons Defendant underclothing. her, then around her and both hands neck choked her to put forcing par- finished, sexual intercourse. When he took the ticipate panties, victim’s in his back and ran from the put them room. Mrs. pocket locked Johnson efforts to Subsequent by Wright regain the entrance door. were unsuc- sat on and Mrs. the bed until went crying cessful he away. When Johnson door, noises outside the opened she later heard of she it and told her that been grandson raped. she had landlady’s boy immediately police. called the When Mrs. husband returned home from Johnson’s later, work 30 minutes he was told of approximately the attack and he went to defendant’s room. When he called for the Wright out, to come wife,” the “I had replied, and, defendant a mess your “I didn’t do wife.” to this your Up to Mr. anything point, had made no men- Johnson Wright. tion of attack to Defendant the came out of finally the apartment himself and Mr. and between fight a ensued. The arresting Johnson a generally arrived had they officers testified that when Mrs. Johnson himself in his Wright again apart- disheveled and had locked appearance give that requested Wright ment. The identified themselves and police and out. he a knife would not come up, himself but he had replied Meanwhile, and returned to her room Mrs. testified that she douched, and on a clean She later stated washed dress. up, put have that defendant might measures because she feared sanitary the custody. some and was taken into Wright disease. surrendered finally was a where a “swab test” was later taken to prosecutrix hospital It trial that the results this test were was at stipulated administered. negative. the Wright placed
The officers testified that after his arrest from his him, a pair panties But before left he lockup. they pulled made a a souvenir. Before and remark to the effect that pocket them, in the toilet and panties the officers could retrieve he threw the flushed them down. trial, the testified for
At the two officers arresting by anyone living medical testimony, the State. There was no no wit- prosecuting the husband building, Johnson, and Mr. ness, in his behalf testify defendant did own did not appear. the defense. The trial court made and no were called witnesses was clear and convinc- finding complainant’s specific he and was sentenced found the defendant the crime guilty of ing, investigation. after pre-sentencing
OPINION Mrs. contends that the initially an lead to conviction convincing abiding to not sufficiently in her contradictions alleged and he several specifically points guilt testimony. State, complainant by
On direct examination of the John at about 5:30 or 6.00 P.M. son that she had been in her bedroom testified She then recounted the circum entered and attacked her. when cross-examination, Later, she was asked stances of rape. evening. on that indicate first time that she had seen that Wright instances to the attack prior she told of the two In reply, been in the kitchen while she had entered the apartment had *4 divulge witness’ failure to the contends that the washroom. Defendant is to her contradictory direct examination entrances on previous two examination, witness On direct the agree. We cannot testimony. later of the two earlier visits of circumstances not asked to relate the was was asked on cross- question was when that only specific It Wright. Her answers to those earlier incidents. of the that told examination answers, but her previous consistent completely questions her. There- from requested than detail previously more merely provided her story. believability from does not detract the fore, this incident of both the testimony prosecutrix that the next argues her from at whether was any jewelry officers as to taken the police the prosecutrix On cross-examination conflicting. rape time of the Her except pink panties. from her nothing defendant took stated that hearing of the transcript preliminary directed to a was then attention that, had the rape, Wright that she had testified after which indicated his re- her and them in pocket. taken from jewelry put at any jewelry if had been wearing that she didn’t know she sponded at the mentioning preliminary time and she didn’t remember jewelry hearing. found they on cross-examination that had officers testified arresting him at the time when searched person on the defendant’s
nothing
was directed to his
at the
testimony
pre-
Zettergren
Officer
arrest.
from
had stated
taken
jewelry
where he
liminary hearing
officer
police
when he was searched
arrest.
Wright’s pocket
at
and it was
hearing
stip-
mentioning jewelry
preliminary
denied
De-
contained no references to jewelry.
that the police reports
ulated
conflicts in the witness’
cast
testimony
maintains that
these
fendant
officers,
on the
of the
and the
credibility
prosecutrix
police
serious doubt
not
the evidence was
clear and convincing.
and that therefore
testimony
been held that the
a
alone
long
prosecutrix
has
It
is
rape
testimony
conviction
to
for
where
support
is sufficient
v. Davis
430.)
10 Ill.2d
convincing.
(1957),
(People
found tobe
however,
evidence,
is
with un
convincing
synonymous
Clear and
testimony
Minor variances in the
testimony.
or unimpeached
contradicted
and,
so,
variances constitute
discrepancies going
these
mere
occur
if
may
28 Ill.2d
is the
credibility.
(1963),
It
to
only
Jackson
fact,
court,
here the
these
weigh
discrepancies
the trier of
task
its
If it is found that
reaching
all
other testimony
decision.
light
as not to detract from the
are so minor
reasonableness
discrepancies
whole,
testimony
may
of the
be found
prosecutrix
as a
story
of her
439;
Thomas
convincing. People
(1960),
be clear and
Brown
Defendant next contends that the failure of the State to produce medical testimony corroborative casts reasonable doubt on the credibility of the of the testimony effectively forecloses a finding settled, however, It is well guilty. that where the testimony prose cutrix is found to be clear and is convincing, it not be necessary that it corroborated in order to warrant or sustain a conviction for rape. (People Davis, And it has supra.) been held that medical specifically is required even prove rape, where it has been established the victim was administered the medical appropriate tests after the crime Boney occurred. Here it was established that Mrs. submitted to medical examination after the attack and it was at trial that stipulated of those results tests were In negative. view the fact that measures sanitary after the rape and be fore disease, the examination because of her fear of a reasonable reaction for a victim unschooled the intricacies of criminal investigation, the trial judge justified disregarding the stipulated test results as inconclusive. entirely Considering consistency and reasonableness of as whole and trial court’s that it finding was medical was not convincing, necessary to warrant the finding of guilty. is judgment affirmed. affirmed.
Judgment
SCHWARTZ, J., concurs. LEIGHTON, Mr. dissenting: JUSTICE I is There reasonable doubt this case. judgment dissent. should DeFrates, 33 190, 467, Ill.2d be reversed. 210 N.E.2d reversing 277, N.E.2d 188. Ill.App.2d