Court Opinion

ID: 9543659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:47:51.411948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:51.955463
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice House, dissenting: It seems to me that it is time to pause and make a reappraisal of the proof necessary to convict a defendant of a crime involving the taking of indecent liberties with a child of tender years. In scrutinizing the testimony of very young children in sex cases, we should take into consideration their relative innocence, their inexperience in worldly affairs, their probable lack of sex knowledge, the difficulty they experience in expressing themselves because of limited vocabularies, their impatience with (or lack of concept of) time, and the like. Applying the foregoing to the testimony of the prosecutrix in this case, it is inconceivable to me that she made up a story “out of the whole cloth."” Her testimony was given in a straightforward convincing manner, the identification of the defendant was positive, no motivation appears in the record for her to tell other than the truth, and the jury was justified in believing her. The inconsistencies in the child’s story are no greater than could be expected from a child of her years and do not amount to improbabilities. She could even have been mistaken as to what constituted actual entrance or penetration and the defendant still could have been convicted since this is an indecent liberties, not a rape case. There was some corroboration of the prosecutrix, and in my opinion her testimony was sufficiently clear and convincing to sustain the conviction. Cf. People v. Halteman, 10 Ill.2d 74. I grant that the majority opinion has some merit on the question of the admissibility of former convictions, but I believe that under the evidence the jury would have convicted the defendant even if the prior convictions had not been introduced into the record. It is basic in our system of government that the judiciary protect human rights, and I adhere to that principle. It is our duty to see that every accused be given a fair trial, but we also owe a duty to the public to protect children from molestation. Mr. Chief Justice Daily, and Mr. Justice Klingbiel, also dissenting.