{
  "id": 2895408,
  "name": "The City of Waukegan, Appellee, vs. Michael Penny, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Waukegan v. Penny",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 42240",
  "first_page": "463",
  "last_page": "466",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 463"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "394 U.S. 111",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6168803
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/394/0111-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 299,
    "char_count": 4518,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.85,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.141210829279633e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5077842376138532
    },
    "sha256": "34c9f85b3471d277f13bad5737919b1233337412c5bdec68991b3d069dc8358f",
    "simhash": "1:b4f5b5bc722c3869",
    "word_count": 763
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:46:26.452896+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The City of Waukegan, Appellee, vs. Michael Penny, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Crees\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA magistrate of the circuit court of Lake County found Michael Penny guilty of disorderly conduct under a Waukegan ordinance and fined him $20 and costs. A constitutional question gives us jurisdiction of his appeal.\nThe complaint on which defendant was tried charged him with disorderly conduct \u201cin that on or about the 22nd day of August, 1968, in and within the City of Waukegan, County of Lake, and State of Illinois, Michael Penny * * * did threaten to take the life of the Complainant Louis Loffreddo [ifc] tending to be a breach of the peace in violation of aforesaid ordinance.\u201d At the trial the evidence showed that about 9:00 P.M. on August 22, 1968, officers Lofredeo and Bayer were in uniform and patrolling in a squad car in Waukegan. They passed a group of boys and one of the boys shouted at the officers. The police stopped their car and backed to the place along the street where the boys were standing or sitting. Defendant made some remarks to Officer Lofredeo, but the evidence is conflicting as to whether it was a threat to kill the officer. The officer got out of the car and told defendant he was under arrest for disorderly conduct.\nOver repeated objections by defendant, the magistrate heard evidence that when the officer told defendant he was under arrest, the defendant stepped back into the group of boys and escaped. The next day he went to the police station and accepted a complaint charging him with disorderly conduct.\nAt the conclusion of the testimony and arguments by counsel, the court found that defendant did not threaten the life of Officer Lofredeo as charged. The court then stated: \u201cHis statement on the stand and the officer\u2019s statement, that he was not going to go, and also the statements made by the mob or the group, * * * Would tend to be conduct that would certainly be tending towards a breach of the peace, for Mr. Penny not to go along peacefully while being placed under arrest.\u201d Defendant\u2019s counsel objected to this finding because his client had not been charged with failing to go with the police officer. The court then stated: \u201cWell, based on, these being civil suits, the amended complaint to the form, here\u2019s the only section I say that\u2019s wide enough to be \u2014 to oppose.\u201d Judgment was then entered finding defendant guilty of disorderly conduct \u201cin manner and form as charged.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s post-trial motion, among other things, alleges : \u201cThe Court erred when it held that certain conduct of the Defendant, not complained of, constituted a violation of the aforementioned ordinance, and such finding by the Court deprived the Defendant of an opportunity to defend himself in violation of the Defendant\u2019s constitutional right to due process of law.\u201d At the hearing on this motion, defense counsel told the court that since the conviction was based on eluding the police officer, he would like to have an opportunity to present evidence on that issue and that he felt he had a defense to this charge. The motion was, nevertheless, denied.\nOn December 3, 1968, defendant filed his notice of appeal. On December 17, 1968, the City of Waukegan filed its amended complaint charging disorderly conduct in that defendant \u201cwas eluding the police officer, Loffredo [-sfc] in the process of an arrest, causing others to interfere with the policeman in discharge of his duties, said conduct therefore tending to the breach of the peace.\u201d\nThe holding in Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 22 L. Ed. 2d 134, 89 S. Ct. 946, requires a reversal of defendant\u2019s conviction. In that case Gregory and his companions were charged with disorderly conduct after they refused to stop a protest march which was causing a public disorder the police could no longer control. The convictions there were based not on the manner in which the march was conducted but rather on the refusal to disperse when requested to do so by the police. The Supreme Court concluded that the convictions were based on a charge that was never made and constituted a denial of due process.\nHere defendant was never given an opportunity to defend on the charge on which the conviction is based.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Lake County is accordingly reversed.\nT Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Crees"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael Alan Nemeroff, of Chicago, (Warren H. Sicora, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Murray R. Conzelman, Corporation Counsel, of Waukegan, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 42240.\nThe City of Waukegan, Appellee, vs. Michael Penny, Appellant.\nOpinion filed May 27, 1970.\nMichael Alan Nemeroff, of Chicago, (Warren H. Sicora, of counsel,) for appellant.\nMurray R. Conzelman, Corporation Counsel, of Waukegan, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0463-01",
  "first_page_order": 473,
  "last_page_order": 476
}