In re Conti

Court of Claims of Illinois

In re Conti

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1092, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 431

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedOctober 23, 1978

DocketNo. 76-CV-1277

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1092 (In re Conti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Claims of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Conti, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1092, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 431 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Poch, J.

This claim arises out of a criminal offense that occurred on October 11,1975, in the 2600 block of North Southport Ave., Chicago, Illinois. The Claimant seeks compensation pursuant to the provisions of the “Crime Victims Compensation Act,” hereafter referred to as the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 70., Sec. 71, et seq.).

Based on the investigatory report of the Attorney General the claim was denied on January 31,1978, on the ground that the Claimant did not incur a pecuniary loss of $200.00 or more atributable to a violent crime. The Claimant objected to this order and requested a full hearing on the merits. This claim was assigned to a Commissioner and a hearing was held on August 9, 1978, before Commissioner Leo J. Spivack where the following facts were established by a preponderance of the evidence:

The Claimant, Charles Conti, was the victim of a violent crime as defined in Sec. 2(c) of the Act to wit: Aggravated Battery (Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 38, Sec. 12-4).

As the result of being beaten and robbed on October 11, 1975, the Claimant incurred medical and hospital expenses in the treatment of his broken jaw and head injuries. He seeks compensation for only these expenses. He suffered no loss of income because he had been unemployed for over six months prior to the offense.

On or about December 6,1975, Detective Ley called Claimant to set up an interview date but was told that Claimant, on advice of counsel, was to make no statement or give any information.

(c) On or about December 6,1975, Sargent James Tellme, in charge of the homocide investigation, detailed officers to interview Claimant. Such interview was never had, due to the officers inability to contact Claimant.

3. Claimant has not cooperated fully with the authorities in and about the investigation of the crime and the apprehension of those responsible, as is required by the letter of the statute.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to modify its order of July 10, 1978.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI