In re Darmstatter

33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 444, 1980 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 160
CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois
DecidedFebruary 8, 1980
DocketNo. 79-CV-0319
StatusPublished

This text of 33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 444 (In re Darmstatter) 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 Darmstatter, 33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 444, 1980 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 160 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1980).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This claim arises out of an incident that occurred on April 7,1978, in Murphysboro, Illinois. Erica Darmstatter, victim, seeks compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Crime Victims Compensation Act, hereafter referred to as the Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 70, par. 71 et seq.

This Court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on the form prescribed by the Court and an investigatory report of the Attorney General of Illinois. Rased upon these documents and other evidence submitted to the Court, the Court finds:

1. That the Claimant, Erica Darmstatter, age 19, was a victim of a violent crime as defined in section 2(c) of the Act, to wit: Battery. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 12 — 3.

2. That on April 7,1978, Claimant’s boyfriend hit her in the face breaking her jaw as they were preparing to go to a party. The incident occurred at his residence. The boyfriend then made a deal with Claimant that he would pay the bills if she did not report him to police. Claimant informed police of the attack on June 14,1979, more than 1 year later, but would not press charges.

3. That the Act requires that one who claims to be an innocent victim of a crime must cooperate fully with law enforcement officials in the apprehension and prosecution of the assailant.

4. That it appears from the police report that the Claimant declined to cooperate fully with law enforcement officials in the apprehension and prosecution of the known assailant in that she failed to press charges.

5. That the Claimant has not met a required condition precedent for compensation under the Act.

It is hereby ordered that the claim of Erica Darmstatter be, and is, hereby denied.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 444, 1980 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-darmstatter-ilclaimsct-1980.